Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Northumberland (Berwick-on-Tweed Division), in the room of Sir Hugh Michael Seely, Baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Sir Percy Harris.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that fighting in East Africa has virtually come to an end, it is intended fully to recognise an independent Ethiopia; to resume normal diplomatic relations and to appoint a Minister; and what steps are being taken with regard to the evacuation of Italian civilians from the territory?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have made abundantly clear their intention to recognise an independent Ethiopia as soon as the military situation permits. Such recognition would naturally be followed by the establishment of diplomatic relations. The evacuation of the large numbers of Italian civilians is already proceeding, but it is necessarily governed by the factors of communications and transport. As negotiations on the subject are in progress, I am not at present in a position to give the House any further information.

Mr. Mander: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that the time has now come when, owing to the almost complete cessation of military operations, full recognition should be given?

Mr. Eden: As I stated some months ago, the question must be governed by

the military situation. Fighting is not at an end, but our general position is quite clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS, TREATMENT).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or in a White Paper, of German atrocities against British subjects in Rumania?

Mr. Eden: The brutal treatment suffered by a number of British subjects in Rumania in September and October last, to which I assume my hon and gallant Friend refers, was inflicted by members of the Rumanian Iron Guard organisation. Much publicity was given to these incidents at the time, but as at present advised, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by the official publication of details in the manner suggested.

Mr. Radford: Is there any reason why this White Paper should be confined to German atrocities in Rumania?

Mr. Eden: That question is among other matters I had in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FINNISH RELATIONS.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that the Republic of Finland has broken off diplomatic relations with Great Britain; whether Finland is now at war with an Ally, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose territory she has invaded; whether he has any statement to make; and what is the position of British subjects and British interests in Finland?

Mr. Eden: I am glad of this opportunity of making a statement on Anglo-Finnish relations. As the House will be aware, His Majesty's Government announced as recently as 22nd July that they had decided to maintain diplomatic relations with the Finnish Government. On 1st August, however, the Finnish Minister called to inform me that his Government had decided to recall him and to suspend for the time being the activities of the Finnish Legation in London. His Majesty's Government deeply regret that the Finnish Government, acting no doubt under German


pressure, have seen fit thus to take the initiative in breaking off diplomatic relations. Most of the British subjects who wished to leave Finland, including the majority of those who had offered their services to the Finnish Government at the time of the Finno-Soviet war, left Finland for Sweden before relations were severed. Arrangements are under discussion with the Finnish Government for the return of His Majesty's Minister and his staff to this country. The United States Minister at Helsinski has assumed charge of British interests in Finland, including the interests of those British subjects who have elected to remain. The Finnish Minister has given me an assurance that the Finnish Government regard themselves as in honour bound to provide for the British volunteers.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the fact that a Finnish Army is fighting side by side with German troops on Russian territory, what is the purpose in supposing that Finland is acting under German pressure? Is she not a voluntary Ally of Germany in a war against a voluntary Ally of this country?

Mr. Eden: All these matters must be a question of assessment by individual Members of this House. In my own view, Germany is playing a large part in Finland to-day in maintaining pressure on her Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does not my right hon. Friend answer the main Question? Why do we not suspend or break off diplomatic relations with Finland?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend has evidently not understood me. Relations are broken off.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that we have informed the Finnish Government that diplomatic relations have been broken off?

Mr. Eden: Most certainly, and in my answer I stated that arrangements are now being made by the Finnish Government to repatriate the British Minister and his staff.

Mr. Thorne: What will become of British subjects who have left Finland and are now in Spain? Will there be any difficulty about them?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. There will be difficulty about that, but arrangements for taking care of them are now in hand.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Have all the British volunteers been evacuated from Finland?

Mr. Eden: Not all, but by far the greater part of them. It is in respect of all, including those who remain, that the Finnish Government have given this pledge.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that most of the British nationals left Finland before diplomatic relations were broken off. Does that not imply that there are still some left, and can he say what is happening to them?

Mr. Eden: There are some who elected to remain, and the United States Government have been asked to be good enough to take charge of their interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES (CONFERENCE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to invite representatives of all our Allies to be present at the next meeting of the Allied Conference and to associate themselves with its work both during and after the war?

Mr. Eden: A meeting of Allied representatives was held on 12th June, and I hope that another will shortly be held to deal with certain specific problems. It is of course desirable that these meetings should be attended by representatives of all the Governments concerned, and the point raised by the hon. Member will certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend see that the next meeting of this conference obtains the greatest possible amount of publicity in this country and throughout the world? That would be of great value to us.

Mr. Eden: I hope we shall do some good work and that it will publicise itself.

Mr. Mander: Will the Press be invited, and will they be as closely associated as possible with the gathering?

Mr. Eden: indicated assent

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether conversations have been begun, or are contemplated in the near future, with the United States of America on the subject of post war reconstruction?

Mr. Eden: Some of the aspects of post-war reconstruction have already formed the subject of exchanges of views of an exploratory character between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the importance of this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES).

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make to the House about the efforts of the Foreign Office to obtain the release of persons of British nationality who are still detained in enemy-occupied countries, particularly those who, at the outbreak of war, were completing their education at various continental universities?

Mr. Eden: The release of civilians of British nationality who are still detained in enemy or enemy-occupied countries is largely a matter of reciprocity. Since it is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to release enemy subjects of military age, no steps have been taken to secure the repatriation of male British subjects, who at the outbreak of war were completing their education at continental universities. While His Majesty's Government and the German Government are in general agreement as regards the repatriation on a reciprocal basis of other classes of civilian subjects, it has, unfortunately, so far been found impossible to arrive at any understanding as to the route by which repatriation should take place. The refusal of the German Government to agree to the grant of a safe conduct for any ship carrying civilians to or from the United Kingdom has rendered progress, for the time being, impracticable.

Mr. Cary: If a suitable route could be discovered, would it then be possible to obtain the release of elderly persons?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is exactly the purpose we have in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (WAR AIMS).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an order published by Marshal Mannerheim declaring that the object of the Finnish war against Russia is the acquisition of Russian Karelia; whether he will inquire if this object is shared by the Finnish Government or the Finnish people; and whether the circumstances under which German troops were introduced into Finland bear any parallel with those under which the Marshal introduced them in 1918?

Mr. Eden: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it would not be practicable, owing to the rupture of diplomatic relations, to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. The interesting analogy which the hon. Member seeks to draw in the last part of his Question may, perhaps, be left to the judgment of history.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not perfectly clear, either that Finland is pursuing a war of conquest or is desirous of conquest in Russia, or that a section of the Finnish people, led by Marshal Mannerheim, are defying their own Government? In either case, is there any reason why this country should not be strongly on the side of Russia in the Finnish-Russian war?

Mr. Eden: I see no reason to disagree with any single one of my hon Friend's points of view.

Captain McEwen: Surely it is ungracious of us to forget so soon the sympathy which we all felt in this country for Finland when she was the victim of unprovoked aggression?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (REFUGEES AND PRISONERS).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will use his good offices with the Soviet Government to obtain entry into


that country of officers of the International Red Cross for the relief of refugees and prisoners there?

Mr. Eden: If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the position of Polish citizens in the U.S.S.R., this has been covered by the recent Polish-Soviet Agreement signed on 30th July. I would draw his attention in particular to the Protocol by which the Soviet Government grant an amnesty to all Polish citizens detained on Soviet territory and to the arrangements contemplated for the formation of a Polish army in the U.S.S.R.

Captain Graham: Would it not be of assistance to the war effort of our Soviet Ally if more facilities were provided for International Red Cross officers for general assistance to refugees and former prisoners?

Mr. Eden: I do not know to what former prisoners my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (ECONOMIC SANCTIONS).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the effect of the economic measures taken by Great Britain against Japan so far; and if it is not intended to make the measures completely operative, to what extent, and on what basis, are licences to be granted?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH CHINA (BRITISH PROPERTY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the names of the British firms whose property has been seized by the Japanese in Northern China; what steps we are taking in the matter; and whether there are enough Japanese firms in British territory, especially Malaya, to enable us, if necessary, to take counter action?

Mr. Eden: Some interference with. British firms in North China has resulted from action taken by the Japanese by

way of reprisal for the freezing of Japanese assets in British territory. No information, however, has been received to indicate that any property belonging to British firms has been seized. The position is, however, being closely watched by the local British authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAN (SITUATION).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the situation in Iran?

Mr. Eden: I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 30th July

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

"GNEISENAU" AND "SCHARNHORST."

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the recent attacks upon the "Gneisenau" and "Scharnhorst''; and whether these ships have received any damage as the result of recent operations?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am unable to add to what has already been published on this subject.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the effectiveness of "The big and beautiful bombs of the boys in the back room" or is it necessary for more powerful explosives to be used against ships of this kind?

BRITISH CASUALTIES (GERMAN MILITARY HONOURS).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the same general arrangements, with military honours, are provided in Germany for British airmen killed over enemy territory as are given in the case of German airmen killed over British territory?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Our information is that full military honours are generally accorded.

AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production, what is the annual


cost of the Air Transport Auxiliary Force and what duties it performs?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon:): It would not be in the public interest to disclose the annual cost of the Air Transport Auxiliary. The function of the Auxiliary is to ferry Royal Air Force and Royal Naval aircraft from the makers in the United Kingdom to storage and operational units.

Sir A. Knox: Would it not be possible to get British pilots to carry out this work? Is the organisation under military law? Could it not be brought under the Royal Air Force?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: As to the first Question, we discussed it by Question and answer last week. It is under military law, and the Royal Air Force are too busy.

Mr. Garro Jones: What is the nature of the arrangement by which this organisation submits its expenditure to the Air Ministry, by whom is that expenditure checked or audited, and upon what actual Vote in the Air Ministry does it appear?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I must ask for notice of that Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Should we not be very grateful to American subjects who are prepared to sacrifice themselves in the service of this country?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what is the salary paid per week to American subjects employed in the Air Transport Auxiliary Force; and how does it compare with the salary paid to British pilots in the same force?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 2nd July to-the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Sir A. Knox: Is it fair that these American subjects in the Air Transport Auxiliary should be paid at so much a higher rate than other American subjects who risk their lives in the Eagle squadrons?

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production upon what conditions and financial terms are Air Transport

Auxiliary Service pilots given advanced training at Royal Air Force flying schools?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The Air Transport Auxiliary have their own flying training school, but on a few occasions Air Transport Auxiliary pilots have been given conversion courses on new types of aircraft at Royal Air Force flying schools. The cost falls on public funds in any event and, in accordance with the war-time rules governing inter-departmental adjustments, no payment is made to the Air Ministry from the Vote of my Department.

Mr. Garro Jones: If facilities are available for the training of civil pilots, why does not this organisation recruit that large number of pilots who received a little less than 50 hours prior to the closing down of the Civil Flying School?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is where we get our English pilots from—those who have done about 50 hours' flying. The reason why the Air Force come into the question is that we have not very many of the new types to get our pilots accustomed to them, and they certainly should get accustomed to them if they go over for a short time to the Air Force.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not quite got my point. Is he aware that pilots who have done less than 50 hours have had no opportunity of completing their training to bring them within the recruiting regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: They will soon be wanted.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what powers his area representatives have to ensure that all available men and plant in their areas, engaged in aircraft production, are kept fully employed?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The area representatives of my Ministry are charged with the responsibility inter alia of remedying impediments to the full utilisation of capacity in the aircraft factories in their areas. When remedial action is beyond local resources, the matter is reported to headquarters.

Mr. Lipson: Is every effort made by the area representatives to preserve units of industry so that they shall not be split up, as this lack of work is not due to any fault of employers or employees?

Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon: Yes, I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CADET SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many candidates were examined under the Naval Cadet Scholarship Scheme in June last; and whether the examination results are available?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): The number of candidates for scholarships at the recent Dartmouth entry examination was 344. It is intended that no distinction should be made between cadets entered by scholarships and those entered in the ordinary way. Consequently it will not be possible to publish a separate list of scholarship results. All cadets entered will be shown in one list in alphabetical order. This list will not be available for another week or two after the interviews and medical examinations have been completed. Scholarship candidates whose results in the written examination were such as to preclude any hope of their being in the final list have already been informed of their non-success.

Mr. Hall: Is the Admiralty satisfied that the scheme is working well, and why would it not be possible to show those who have entered under the scheme apart from those who have come in in the ordinary way? Otherwise we cannot tell if it is working properly.

Sir V. Warrender: It is too early yet to pass judgment on the scheme. We are deliberately not differentiating between those who come in under scholarships and those who come in the ordinary way. The Admiralty consider it desirable to treat all Dartmouth cadets alike.

EXCESS PAY (RECOVERY).

Wing-Commander James: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to mitigate the hardships occasionally caused to officers and ratings

when, through an error that is no fault of theirs, pay in excess of what is due has been credited to them, a maximum percentage deduction may be brought into force instead of a total stoppage of pay now prevailing while the debt is cleared off?

Sir V. Warrender: I think my honourable and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. The Regulations provide that when a debt is to be recovered from a rating, recovery shall be made by instalments. Though there is no regulation about officers, the rate of recovery would be a matter of arrangement and there would not be a complete stoppage of pay.

Wing-Commander James: Will my hon. Friend recognise that the natural tendency of a paymaster is to make the maximum possible stoppage, for fear that the officer or rating may become a casualty before the debt is paid off, and will he therefore ensure that the percentage deduction to work off arrears is kept as low as possible?

Sir V. Warrender: It is the policy to keep deductions as low as possible. My information is that in no case does a complete stoppage of pay ever take place. If my right hon. and gallant Friend has a case in mind I will look into it.

WEST INDIES (UNITED STATES BASES, WAGE RATES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that much of the labour in the United States of America bases in the West Indies is not organised, and that local wage levels are below those of reasonable subsistence, he will advise the respective Governors to encourage the payment of higher wages than those so prevailing?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): As was stated in my Reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 2nd July, the rates paid by the United States authorities are based upon the rates prevailing for comparable work in the Colonies in which the work is being carried out. In the event of the Governors being of the opinion that the rates paid generally are unreasonably low by reason of the rise in the cost of living or other cause, it will be possible in nearly every


case for them to deal with the situation by prescribing minimum rates, in the event of agreement for higher rates not being reached between the employers in the Colony and the workers or the workers' unions.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that since the outbreak of war wages in the sugar industry in Jamaica have been increased by 30 per cent, and the average hours of work are 20 per week, and that wages have increased in Trinidad and other islands?

Mr. Adams: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a general feeling among those who are studying the problem of wage conditions in the Colonies that the Colonial Office is very shy in insisting on better conditions for the under-paid?

Mr. Hall: I do not know that my hon. Friend is justified in making that assertion. The Governors in some of the Colonies are taking up with the American authorities the question of increasing wages even beyond the rates paid generally throughout the Colonies.

Mr. George Griffiths: What is the 30 per cent, increase based on? Is it 6d. a day?

Mr. Hall: I cannot say that.

EAST AFRICA (COFFEE INDUSTRY).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the working of the Coffee Control Board in Kenya and the general situation of East African coffee growers; and what steps have been taken to assist African coffee growers in Uganda and Tanganyika?

Mr. George Hall: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Harvey: Are the Government bearing in mind Lord Lloyd's statement that this is one of the black spots in the Empire?

Mr. Hall: I do not think my hon. Friend will be dissatisfied with the Reply when he sees it.

Following is the Answer:

On 23rd July, 1940, the Kenya Government published in the ''Official Gazette'' an Order under the Defence Regulations, 1939, controlling the marketing and export of coffee. A sub-committee of the local Supply Board was appointed, and it is this committee which is exercising control over the Kenya coffee crop. The primary consideration of the committee is to obtain a price for the crop which will maintain production. Subject to this consideration, it is the intention of the committee to preserve equity within the industry and to enable the various firms engaged in the handling of coffee to continue in operation and to preserve their status vis-à-vis their competitors. The marketing of the crop has therefore been organized so as to make use of existing trade interests, and any departure from this principle will be contemplated only where and to the extent that exigencies of the future render such a course unavoidable. The crop is being sold on a pool basis, and no individual planter will benefit immediately from the restricted sales which may be made to the markets which still pay premium prices for quality coffee. Payments for planters from the pool will, however, be made upon a scale laid down by the committee which will differentiate in value between the various qualities of coffees.

My Noble Friend has recently approved a coffee marketing scheme in Uganda under a special Ordinance, with a Board of Control composed of the Director of Agriculture, the Provincial Commissioner of the Eastern Province and the Accountant-General. To carry out the scheme a company is being formed which will be composed of the three firms at present operating the buying in a part of the area. The company will be the managing agent of the Board, and, subject to the supervision and control of the Board, will carry out the whole of the business of buying and processing coffee in the area affected by the scheme.

As regards the coffee industry in East Africa generally, it is hoped that a certain quantity may be imported into this country during the next 12 months and that other markets will be found in Canada, the United States of America, South Africa, Australia, Egypt, the Sudan and certain Near East countries. In addition local military and civil requirements


may provide an outlet for some of the production.

The present control system in Kenya has not been extended to the other territories.

ABYSSINIAN CHURCH PROPERTY, JERUSALEM.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information about the present position of the property of the Abyssinian Church in Jerusalem?

Mr. George Hall: I have no recent information on this subject, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

Mr. Hannah: Was this property at any time administered by the Italians?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has been raised many times in the House and that there has been great delay in returning this property to its rightful owners?

Mr. Hall: As my hon. Friend is aware, there has been a change in circumstances recently.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not recently, but a long time ago.

NIGERIA (RAILWAY FREIGHT CHARGES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of complaints being made in Nigeria respecting the effect of the high rate of railway freights in holding up internal trade in foodstuffs; and whether he will secure a reduction in the rates of foodstuffs, particularly in view of the general improvement of the railway position?

Mr. George Hall: I am not aware of the complaints to which my hon. Friend refers; but inquiry will be made of the Governor, and on receipt of his reply I will communicate with my hon. Friend again. In the meantime, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know on what information his Question is based?

Mr. Sorensen: If my hon. Friend discovers that the difficulty to which I refer exists, will he take steps to secure a reduction in the freight charges?

Mr. Hall: We must await the information from the Governor before I can commit myself.

Mr. Mathers: In making his inquiry will the Minister take into account the possibility of competing road haulage rates?

MALAYA (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the report made in the Johore State Council that an acute scarcity of essential foodstuffs now existed and that large areas of land were derelict; that the production of rice as a staple product has fallen drastically during the last decade owing to the lack of proper drainage and irrigation; whether the schemes of water-control being formulated, as stated in the Economic Survey, are likely to be carried into effect; and whether the peasants are being assisted in regard both to land reclamation and an adequate food supply?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend has not received a copy of the report mentioned, but he has no information of any acute scarcity of essential foodstuffs in Johore. The Government of Johore, like other Administrations in Malaya, is energetically developing its existing and potential "padi" areas, in order to grow more food and reduce the extent to which Malaya has depended in the past on imported supplies of rice. The State Government is carrying through a development scheme, which is estimated to cost 2,500,000 dollars, and it is the policy in Johore, as in the other Malay States, to develop settlement in new "padi" areas opened by fresh irrigation works. Arrangements have been made in Malaya to ensure the maintenance of food supplies.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that my hon. Friend is making inquiries with regard to the supply of rice in particular in Johore?

Mr. Hall: We are awaiting a report, but we are carrying out the work as suggested by my hon. Friend in his Question.

Mr. Sorensen: When is that report likely to be received?

Mr. Hall: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TRANSPORT.

SOLDIERS' EQUIPMENT (RAILWAY TRAINS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether he is aware of the Inconvenience caused to soldiers on train journeys when they travel with equipment on leave; and will he consider making provision for them to place it in a luggage van adapted specially for that purpose?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel LIewellin): Main line trains are already made up to their full capacity, and further vehicles cannot be added. I am therefore afraid that we are unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Tinker: Is there nothing that the Minister can suggest to get over this difficulty? Should not some attempt be made to make travelling more comfortable for the soldier?

Colonel LIewellin: I think the difficulty is due to the fact that if a soldier is carrying his pack and rifle, he rather likes to keep an eye on them in the train.

Mr. Tinker: He is not so keen on them as that.

STEEL (REMOVAL FROM DOCKS).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that certain works, of which he has been informed, are in difficulties from the slow transport of steel from the docks; and whether he can hold out any hope that certain facilities, of which he has been informed, will be available in the near future.

Colonel Llewellin: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

LOCOMOTIVE TURNTABLE (REPAIR).

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the delay being caused, at a place of which he has been informed, owing to a loco motive turntable having been out of repair since 9th June, 1941; whether he will investigate whether it is due to the lack of the necessary material; and. whether he will take steps to have the matter rectified in order to avoid delay in traffic and un necessary use of fuel.

Colonel Llewellin: I understand that delay in the repair of the turntable in question is due to difficulty in obtaining a certain casting. I am having further inquiries made and am seeing what can be done to expedite the matter.

NEW RAILWAY MALT, TREFOREST.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport when the proposed erection of the new railway halt at Treforest, Glamorganshire, will be commenced.

Colonel Llewellin: Very shortly, Sir.

DOG RACING, HARRINGAY.

Mr. Messer: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the in convenience caused to workers travelling home from work by the congestion caused by crowds of people leaving the grey hound racing-track at Harringay; whether he will consult with the Home Secretary with a view to arrangements being made for dog-racing to be held earlier in the day; and will he arrange for additional transport facilities to be provided.

Colonel Llewellin: I have made inquiries and am assured that no serious inconvenience is caused to homeward-bound workers by Harringay racegoers. The hours of racing are fixed in consultation with the transport authorities so as to avoid overlap with the rush-hour traffic.

Mr. Messer: Will the Minister have special investigations made, as I regret to say from my experience that the Answer is not in accordance with the facts?

Colonel Llewellin: Before answering my hon. Friend I had special inquiries made. The first race is at 7.30 in the evening, and the track is cleared at 10 p.m. These times do not as a rule conflict with the going home of the workers.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether dog racing is necessary for the national effort?

Colonel Llewellin: That is a matter of opinion.

RAILWAY TRAFFIC (BANK-HOLIDAY PERIOD).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what final instructions he gave to the railway companies with regard to traffic during the last week-end period?

Commander King-Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why it was necessary to run so many additional trains during the August Bank Holiday period, having regard to the Government's appeal to the public not to travel, and the imperative need of reducing coal consumption to the minimum consistent with the war effort; and whether, on future occasions, he will take care that appeals not to travel are reinforced by absence of abnormal travel facilities?

Colonel Llewellin: The railway companies were instructed that in accordance with the policy with regard to holidays generally no special facilities for travel should be provided and no extra trains should be run apart from those required to dispose of the overflow which could not be accommodated by the regular services. Despite the appeal not to travel, the number of passengers arriving at the stations was far in excess of the capacity of the scheduled train services and relief trains were necessary to remove the crowds of waiting passengers who had already paid their fares. My hon. Friends will, however, be glad to hear that over the period as a whole there has been no hold-up of essential goods traffic.

Sir J. Mellor: Has not the Minister any power to deal with a situation of this sort? If the railway companies are prevented by some legal difficulty from refusing to carry passengers, would it not have been possible for the Minister to relieve them of that difficulty, especially in view of the previous announcement that no additional trains would be run over the Bank-Holiday period?

Colonel Llewellin: We certainly have the power. We could direct that no passenger trains at all be run on Bank Holiday or on the Saturday, but in fact, although we did not want an extra number of people to travel, there were sufficient trains to take them away. There may not be in the winter months. While some of these people can get a holiday without interfering with essential railway traffic, it would be right to allow trains to run and to allow people to take a holiday which many of them thoroughly deserve.

Sir J. Mellor: Why was it previously announced that no additional trains would be run?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many additional passenger trains were run between 1st August and 4th August inclusive; what was the estimated amount of additional coal consumed; and to what extent was goods traffic impeded?

Colonel Llewellin: It will take some little time to collect the desired information, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have obtained it.

Sir J. Mellor: How can my right hon. and gallant Friend reconcile the waste of coal, which everyone knows took place, with the Government's appeal to the miners to increase their efforts to produce coal and to the public to economise in the use of it?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not think we can stop all passenger trains because of a certain shortage of coal. I should be interested to know how many Members of this House travelled during the Bank Holiday week-end.

Mr. Mander: Why were the newspapers full of advertisements from the railway companies urging people to take advantage of special facilities to go on holidays at the time when they contained appeals from the Government to the public not to travel?

Colonel Llewellin: There was only one such announcement in the newspapers, and when our attention was drawn to it we found that it had got in by error, and we stopped it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

PROPAGANDA (FINNISH SOCIAL DEMOCRATS)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken, by way of propaganda, to enlist the active sympathy of the Finnish Social Democrats for the war against Nazi Germany?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not in the public interest to discuss methods of propaganda to Finland.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that no special arrangements are being made for special broadcasts to Finnish


Social Democrats, Liberals, peasants and others who are deeply attached to their own democracy and many of whom must realise the danger and the wickedness of the course on which their Government has now embarked?

Mr. Thurtle: For the reason given in my Answer, I regret to say that I am unable to add anything to it.

BRITISH WAR NEWS, RUSSIA.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Information whether he has yet received a reply from His Majesty's Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to the suggestion that arrangements should be made for British war news to be issued in Russian by the Press Department of the British Embassy in Moscow on similar lines to the news bulletins issued in English by the Press Department of the Soviet Embassy in London.

Mr. Thurtle: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador has decided not to issue such bulletins at present.

CHINESE OPERATIONS (FILMS).

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider means whereby our public may become informed on the struggle which the Chinese people are carrying on by means of documentary films?

Mr. Thurtle: My right hon. Friend is not aware that any suitable films exist at present, and there are serious difficulties in the way of getting them made, but if the hon. Member has any suggestions to make regarding this matter, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Price: Will my hon. Friend consider consulting the representatives of the Chinese Government to see whether something on these lines is not practicable?

Mr. Thurtle: That suggestion will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MAILS FROM INDIA.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that letters sent by Pacific and Atlantic air mail bearing the Calcutta postmark 7th April, were delivered in Newcastle-upon- Tyne on 10th July, and also letters from

India dated 18th and 24th April, were delivered here on 24th July; and whether these delays can now be materially reduced?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Allan Chapman): As regards the first part of the Question, the trans-Pacific air service and trans-Atlantic air service to Lisbon are operated by an American company, and in the case of outward letters to India by this route the transit time has varied from 20 to 31 days. The arrangements for the despatch of mails from India to this country are the responsibility of the Indian Postal Administration; but if the hon. Member will let me have the covers of the letters to which he refers I will have inquiry made as to the cause of the abnormal delay. As regards the second part, the letters referred to appear to have beten ordinary letters despatched in surface mails which took rather longer than usual in transit. The hon. Member will appreciate the difficulties of the sea transport of mails in present conditions, and I am afraid I can see no prospect of any immediate improvement.

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES, MIDDLE EAST.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position further to state the results of his investigations into the dispatch and delivery of mails and telegrams for civilians and for the Forces in the Middle East; and will he explain the division of responsibility between the Services and his department?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir. As regards the mail services to His Majesty's Forces in the Middle East, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply given on 8th of July to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). The outward Airgraph service is expected to be started very shortly. I regret that owing to the very limited aircraft accommodation available, it has not so far been possible to give, in the case of civilians in the Middle East, the same air mail facilities as those afforded in the case of His Majesty's Forces. My right hon. Friend is, however, examining in collaboration with the other Government Departments concerned, the possibility of making the Airgraph Service available to and from civilians in the Middle East. Letters for His Majesty's Forces in the Middle East


are transferred to the Army Post Office in this country and the despatching arrangements are made in close collaboration with my Department and the other Departments concerned. The responsibility for the civil mails rests with my Department up to arrival in the country of destination where they are taken over by the civil Post Office of the country concerned.
Telegrams to civilians in countries in the Middle East area must be addressed in the normal way to a telegraph office in the country of destination. The telegrams are transmitted by the system of Cable and Wireless Limited to the country of destination where they are delivered either by the local telegraph company or by the civil telegraph administration of the country concerned. Telegrams addressed to members of the Middle East Force are transmitted by the system of Cable and Wireless Limited from this country to the Base, where they are handed over to the Army postal authorities who are then responsible, as in the cage of correspondence, for forwarding them to the addressees.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister see that there is no waste of coal in giving these facilities to civilians?

FACTORY HOSTELS.

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (1) how many hostels it is proposed to erect similar in design to a hostel attached to a certain Royal Ordnance factory; how many have been erected; and how many are in the course of erection;

(2) what action he has taken as the result of the inspection of hostels of the design erected in connection with a certain Royal Ordnance factory?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Only three hostels of the type referred to have been built, and no more are contemplated. An improved design was developed some months ago in collaboration with the Departments concerned, and I am glad to learn that this action anticipated the results of the inspection referred to by my hon. Friend.

Miss Ward: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, I would like to ask whether there is full consultation with all kinds of people who have knowledge which would assist in the designing of these hostels?

Mr. Hicks: The Departments are consulted, including the War Office, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Health.

Miss Ward: But is the Minister satisfied that those Departments have practical knowledge of the conditions under which women like to live in hostels?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the inferior designs of the three original hostels, is the charge to remain the same?

Mr. Hicks: There are two types of hostels, the one a temporary hostel and the other a more permanent type, and therefore they cannot all be of one design.

SOLICITORS' BILL.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Attorney-General what reply he has sent to the request of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to support the Solicitors' Bill, so that the public may be as soon as possible protected by legislation against frauds by solicitors?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply I gave on 30th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall). I replied to the Association on the same lines.

Sir P. Hurd: May we know what those lines are?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln was informed that the Law Society were in touch with certain Members of this House who have put a Motion on the Order Paper, and that it was hoped that as a result of consultations the Bill would be able to proceed as an agreed Measure.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

EGGS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what remedy is open to a retailer under the Egg Rationing Scheme whose


customers find the eggs sold to them unusable?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): If the retailer is satisfied that the eggs sold to a consumer are unusable he should supply others in their place, and in his turn claim a replacement from his wholesale supplier, who receives from the Ministry's agents an allowance to meet such claims.

Mr. Hall: May I ask whether the retailers are aware of this? I have had a complaint from my constituency that in the case of one family five eggs were bad and the retailer thought he had no redress.

Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to make inquiries into that case, but circulars on this subject have been sent to all the officers in the areas.

Mr. Garro Jones: Do the wholesalers have to bear the loss?

Major Lloyd George: No, they get an allowance.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether in the interests of economy of time and transport, he will authorise producer-retailers of eggs to hold back the appropriate rations of their customers before dispatching their eggs to the packing stations?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, there is no fixed ration for eggs. The number to be made available for each registered customer can be calculated only after deliveries at packing stations are known. In order that the producer-retailer may obtain the full producer price, it is necessary- that his eggs should pass through a packing station for grading and stamping.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that the Ministry know approximately each week the number of eggs they will obtain, and is not this '' general post '' of eggs highly unsatisfactory, in view of the difficulty of transport and the fact that, by this system of collecting eggs from farms and taking almost an equal quantity back, you are utilising a vast quantity of transport, which is scarcely tolerable in the present circumstances?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think it is right to say that an equal number of eggs goes back to the farm with what is

taken off, because that is hardly possible; but I can assure hon. Members that everything that can be done to reduce transport is done. Distribution is, as much as possible, confined to the areas of collection.

MARRIED WOMEN WORKERS (SHOPPING FACILITIES).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that many married women are now in Government employ, he will make arrangements for them to do their shopping without having to stand in queues; has his attention been called to a system adopted in the Slough district, where shopping cards of different colours for different days are being issued, and shops kept open at special hours for women who hold these cards; and whether he will consider adopting a similar plan throughout the country?

Major Lloyd George: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 8th July, it has been decided wherever possible and practicable to improve distributive methods by an extension of rationing or otherwise. When these improvements have been effected queues for practically all foodstuffs should cease so far as they are due to local shortages. In the meantime the local officers of the Ministry of Food and Ministry of Labour have been instructed to do what is possible in consultation with local trade organisations to assist married women workers to do their shopping, whether on the lines now in experimental operation in certain shops in Slough or otherwise, as may best suit local conditions.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the wonderful national work done by these women, many of them married, why cannot my right hon. and gallant Friend take some really effective action to see that they get their weekly rations in good time?

Major Lloyd George: As I pointed out to my hon. Friend in my answer, the most effective means would be to have a better system of distribution, and, as I have told the House, I am very hopeful that it will shortly be in operation.

Mr. Messer: But are not queues the fairest way of doing it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If you do not have queues, you will have scrambles, which will be worse.

BARLEY (BREWING).

Major Peto: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, on 6th December, 1939, in reply to a Question whether some of the barley devoted to brewing would be devoted to feeding stuffs for animals, the Ministry of Agriculture promised to give consideration to the matter; that on 18th January, 1941, a further answer stated that the matter was under discussion with representatives of the brewing industry; and, as 18 months has now elapsed, what actual reduction has been made in the supply of barley to brewers?

Major Lloyd George: In view of the Government's decision that the output of beer should be permitted up to 100 per cent. of the output in the year ended 30th September, 1939, no reduction in the amount of barley used for brewing has been feasible. Purchases by brewers and maltsters have, however, been strictly controlled to the quantities necessary to meet the current requirements. It is estimated that, by restricting to a minimum the stocks ordinarily carried by the industry from one season to another, between 150,000 and 200,000 tons of cereals have been diverted to animal feeding-stuffs during the cereal year 1940–41.

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is the policy of the Ministry that, whatever else may go short, brewing must not?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think that conclusion can be drawn from my. answer.

CANTEENS (HEAVY INDUSTRIES).

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of his promise to supply rationed foods to miners' canteens, he will also pro vide rationed foods to canteens used by workers in the heavy industries where the canteens are provided at the order of the Minister of Labour?

Major Lloyd George: Canteens provided at the order of the Minister of Labour are registered as catering establishments under the rationing Regulations, and are already entitled to supplies of rationed foods.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend seen the correspondence

about some of the canteens on the Tyneside, and is he aware that continually saying that everything is satisfactory is not always true?

Major Lloyd George: That is true about many things. I have not seen the correspondence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that if any question relating to a canteen is brought to my notice, I will look into it. I have not had any such question brought to my notice so far.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend ask for the correspondence, because there must be volumes of it in the Ministry of Food relating to the canteens on the Tyneside? Will he also consult the Ministry of Labour to see whether they are satisfied that his own Department has supplied the necessary foodstuffs?

Major Lloyd George: Up to date, I believe, food has been supplied in more cases than have the canteens.

TRADERS (LICENSING).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement respecting the licensing of food traders?

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether any decision has now been reached with regard to the licensing of dealers in foodstuffs and the prohibition of trading therein without licence;

(2) what action has been taken on the representations made and forwarded some two months ago by the London Chamber of Commerce, seeking machinery to prevent rising costs of foodstuffs through the intervention of persons not previously engaged in business in the distribution of food?

Major Lloyd George: Traders in all the principal foodstuffs have been required from the outbreak of war to be licensed by a food control committee before they may sell by retail. This policy is being continued, and will be extended where necessary to any foodstuff of which the price is or may become controlled by Order. It has also been the policy of the Ministry since the beginning of the war to require traders to obtain a licence to trade by wholesale, whenever it appeared that this course was desirable in


order to secure adequate control over distribution of any foodstuff. It has now been decided that in the absence of special circumstances this procedure shall be applied to all foodstuffs of which the prices are or may become controlled by Order.
As a general rule, licences to deal in any commodity, whether retail or wholesale, have been granted only to traders who dealt in that particular commodity before the war, and, save in exceptional circumstances, it is intended to continue this policy. It would not, however, be practicable to make this an absolute rule. There are cases in which, in the interests of consumers, exceptions are desirable. Since the outbreak of war it has not been the practice to revoke to any considerable extent licences which have been issued to traders in foodstuffs. It has, however, now been decided that further steps must be taken to ensure that the provisions of maximum price and rationing Orders are obeyed. Practically all important foodstuffs, with the exception of certain perishable and luxury articles, are the subject of price control and, with a view to ensuring that the provisions of all Orders will be carried out, my Noble Friend has decided that in future the licence shall be withdrawn from any trader, whether wholesaler or retailer, who is guilty of conduct which renders him an unsuitable link in the chain of distribution. This will come into operation as from 15th August.

Mr. Lipson: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his answer and for the very big advance which his Department has made, may I ask whether he can give us an assurance that only legitimate traders in foodstuffs will be licensed?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, certainly, but, as I pointed out in my answer, sometimes there are cases in which the interests of the consumer cut across such distinctions; but this will be the only exception.

Major Lyons: In view of the fact that unchecked gate-crashing in the food markets has been responsible for much rise in prices, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend, while assuring him that we all welcome the advance, whether he will give more consideration in future to

representations that are made in these matters, and will bear in mind that these suggestions have been made to his Department for 12 months?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. and gallant Friend is not always well informed on these matters. We have always taken a very serious view of recommendations sent forward to us. I am sure that if he will go back over the past 12 months during which he says nothing has been done, he will find steady progress.

Major Lyons: On a point of Order. Arising out of the Minister's remarks, in which he said I am not well informed—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In the terms of the new Order, will the Minister impose the penalties to which he referred upon a retailer who by-passes the market, and upon any wholesaler or retailer who commits offences such as were mentioned?

HOSTELS (UNRATIONED FOOD).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Food whether he is aware that shopkeepers are finding it difficult to supply workmen's hostels recently set up by the Ministry of Labour in addition to their regular customers with unrationed foodstuffs; and whether he will consider supplying such hostels with their requirements direct from his Department as in the case of British restaurants?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that, in certain cases, difficulties have been experienced by some new establishments catering for workers, including British Restaurants, in obtaining supplies of unrationed foods. The whole question of the better distribution of unrationed foodstuffs is receiving careful consideration.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister bear in mind the difficulty of providing hostels with a sufficient supply of foodstuffs?

Major Lloyd George: I appreciate the difficulty in regard to all these unrationed commodities, and we are taking special steps, apart from the examination of the bigger question. Instructions have been given which will make distribution easier.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that the hostels can be supplied by his Ministry? How are the British Restaurants supplied?

Major Lloyd George: They are not supplied direct by the Ministry, but through the ordinary trade channels.

FROZEN MEAT CARGOES.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why stocks of meat in cold storage, in a town he knows of, were sent by rail and/or road to cold stores in a distant port, with the result that meat arriving there a few days later by ocean steamship could not be accommodated, and the stocks brought in by rail and/or road were re turned whence they came?

Major Lloyd George: The incident to which my hon. Friend refers was very unusual. The ocean steamship in question had to be diverted at very short notice, for reasons beyond the control of my Department. If it had been possible to learn of this in good time, the necessary arrangements at the cold store could have been made, and the incident referred to would not have arisen.

Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the owners of the steamship and the cold storage company were both aware of the situation?

Major Lloyd George: I take it that they would be aware of the diversion after it had been ordered. The point is to know before the diversion has been ordered.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why unnecessary risks are taken by his Department in hot weather in transferring cargoes of frozen produce from ports of entry to other towns when cold storage space is available at the ports?

Major Lloyd George: Several considerations have to be taken into account, such as expected future arrivals and space available at the port and the need for dispersal for security reasons. I can assure my hon. Friend that no unnecessary risks of the kind to which he refers have been taken by my Department.

Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that 7,000 tons of vacant cold storage space was available, and, as the weather was very hot at the

time, was it not most unwise, having regard to the scarcity of food, to transport it at all?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend must remember my difficulties in replying to questions about details. I do not think there was all that spare space at the particular time of arrival, but I would rather not try to deal with details.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why frozen meat arriving in a town he knows of by rail and road in soft condition, was discharged into non- refrigerated barges and allowed to remain out of cold storage for several days; and why much, if not all, of this meat was not sent direct by rail and road to cold store, thus saving much-needed food brought from overseas?

Major Lloyd George: The alternative method referred to has been tried, and had to be discontinued for reasons which I am satisfied are sound. The meat in question was discharged into insulated barges, and although some of it became soft none of it was lost.

Mr. Robertson: Could not the methods used by cold stores in peace-time have been resorted to, instead of having rail and road traffic, and going through a procedure as though the commodities had come into the river by sea?

Major Lloyd George: My information is that there had been serious road congestion. I am informed also that it is the practice in peace-time to take a lot of the meat to the cold stores in London by way of the river.

SMALL TRADERS.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will instruct food committees to rule that if any small trader can establish that he does not merely wish to obtain rationed food for his family he can, even if he has fewer than 25 registered customers, be allowed to continue to earn his living as a purveyor of rationed food?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, I see no reason to add to the instructions already issued to the food control committees in accordance with the statement made on 22nd July in response to a Question put


by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering (Captain Profumo). Committees have been instructed to examine any case where a retailer claims that he would suffer hardship if he were unable to retain his registrations, and I am satisfied that the committees may be trusted to carry out this duty without any further instructions such as my hon. Friend suggests.

Sir L. Lyle: Is not the position most unsatisfactory, as the small trader is being left to the tender mercies of the food officials, who have been given confidential instructions by my right hon. and gallant Friend, which he refuses to lay on the Table of the House, so that we do not know what the position is?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think my hon. Friend or the small trader need worry very much about that. Instructions have been given, and the matter is in the hands of the food control committees, who are not appointed by the Ministry but by the local authorities.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: And the traders.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, there are five traders and 10 others on the committee. I have seen the instructions myself, and I am perfectly satisfied that the legitimate trader has no need to fear.

Sir L. Lyle: Would it not be better to lay the instructions on the Table, or else to leave the small trader where he was before?

Mr. E. Walkden: Do not the local food committees already know exactly what the position is, and can they not protect the small trader if they wish to do so?

Major Lloyd George: That is so, and that is why I have no fear that any hardship will be inflicted upon the small trader.

DIABETICS.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange to allow an egg per-day and a bigger ration of bacon for all diabetics who produce a doctor's note to state they need it?

Major Lloyd George: Diabetics are already allowed two extra meat and two extra butter and margarine rations per week in exchange for their sugar ration, and I am advised that no further concession is necessary at the present time.

Mr. Griffiths: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that eggs are really the backbone of the diet of the diabetic, that until eggs became scarce as many as 10 eggs a week were allowed to such people on a doctor's note, and cannot the Minister see his way clear at least to give diabetics one egg per day?

Major Lloyd George: I need not tell my hon. Friend that we are sympathetic towards the people he has mentioned. We are advised in all these matters by our medical advisers, and I cannot say more than that this question is at the moment under consideration.

Mr. Griffiths: But was not the Ministry advised by its medical men once before when I put a Question in the House, when they were proved wrong and had to be asked to think again?

Major Lloyd George: I quite agree to asking them to do that.

JAM MAKING (IMPORTED APPLE PULP).

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the shortage of fruit, especially apples, during the coming winter, it is proposed to inquire if apple pulp for jam making cap be imported from some of the Dominions, where considerable quantities are likely to be available?

Major Lloyd George: Supplies of fruit pulp and jam will be imported, also dried apples, but I am advised that it would not be economical of shipping space to import apple pulp for jam making.

MILK AND CHEESE.

Mr. Graham White: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the distribution of milk during the coming winter; and whether there is any prospect of an increased quantity of cheese being made available to the general public in the near future?

Major Lloyd George: Substantial quantities of condensed milk have been manufactured in this country during the summer, and very large quantities are being supplied from overseas. There is therefore no reason to expect that anyone will be short of milk during the coming winter, but individuals may have to consume rather more condensed milk and


rather less liquid milk than they have been accustomed to do in the past. In view of the perishable nature of milk and the paramount importance of avoiding waste, we are satisfied that a formal rationing scheme for milk is undesirable. My Noble Friend is determined, however, that those who need liquid milk most shall be given the opportunity of obtaining sufficient quantities of it. Supplies of one pint of liquid milk per day will continue to be available to all expectant mothers and infants up to five years of age under the provisions of the present National Milk Scheme. Supplies of half a pint per day will also be available for children and adolescents up to the end of their 17th year on payment of the full current prices.
To enable liquid milk to be provided for these priority classes and to assist in the distribution of liquid milk to the remainder of the population, all members of the public will be required to register for milk. Full instructions will be issued shortly. It will greatly assist the smooth working of milk distribution if each household is registered with a single dairyman.
In answer to the second part of the Question, the cheese ration will be increased to 3 ozs. per head for the ordinary consumer as from 25th August. The ration of 8 ozs. for the priority classes will remain unchanged.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether it is the intention of the Government to discontinue milk bars throughout the country?

Major Lloyd George: I am not quite sure where milk bars stand. I believe they come under catering establishments, arid if that is so their priority would be low.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is it the intention to announce in the immediate future a minimum unit per person per day?

Major Lloyd George: That must depend on the number of registrations, because until we know what that is likely to be, it will be very difficult to say what the unit should be.

Mr. Mathers: Will condensed milk come within the ration in any way?

Major Lloyd George: Possibly it will have to. But there is no ration of milk in that sense, although, of course, condensed milk may have to be relied on to make up any shortage.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Have the cows been informed what is to be expected of them in the future, and have their rations been thoroughly safeguarded?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. There is to be a broadcast on the subject.

Mr. White: Will the condensed milk to which my right hon. and gallant Friend has referred be available through the dairies, the usual suppliers of milk?

Major Lloyd George: I should like notice of that Question, but I should think that obviously if it has to be used to make up a lack of liquid milk, it will have to be made available through the dairies.

MUNITION WORKS (HOLIDAY PAYMENT).

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he is aware that a large munition works, of which he has been informed, is closing down for 10 days, and that those employees who have been employed for less than seven months will have no holiday payment, will not be entitled to any unemployment benefit, and will be forced to apply for public assistance; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This works is closing down for 10 days in order that necessary maintenance work and movement of stocks may be effected. The employees of the firm who will be on holiday during this period will receive payment in accordance with the arrangements for holidays laid down for the trade to which the firm belongs. They will receive full payment if they have been for a year or more in the employment of the firm, or pro rata payment in accordance with their length of service if they have been working for the firm for less than a year. Any question of unemployment benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Mr. Edwards: May I put it to my hon. Friend that those employees who have worked for less than six months will not be entitled to any unemployment benefit at all, and would it not have been better if they could have been given some sort of work instead of being kept idle for 10 days?

TANKS (MONEY GIFTS).

Commander Locker Lampson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he will institute a tanks giving day on which money can be raised for tanks?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. The Ministry of Supply does not take any part in the promotion of funds, but spontaneous gifts received by the Ministry for the purchase of tanks are, of course, most gratefully acknowledged. In any case my Noble Friend will do his utmost to maximise the production of tanks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May we be informed what will be the forthcoming Business of the House?

Mr. Attlee: To-day's Business, after the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, will be Lords Amendments to the Pharmacy and Medicines Bill, Second Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, as well as the Motion to approve the South Wales Electric Power Company Special Order.

The Business of the House after the Summer Recess will be as follows:

First Sitting Day—If necessary, a statement will be made on the War Situation. Afterwards we shall take the Committee and remaining stages of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading of the India and Burma (Postponement of Elections) Bill, which is expected to be received from another place, and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Solicitors Bill [Lords']. As the House is aware, the Government can only afford facilities for the Solicitors Bill if it is treated as a non-contentious Measure.

Second Sitting Day—We shall consider the recent reports from the Committee of Privileges and make further progress with outstanding legislation. I would remind the House that the Chairman of Ways and Means has put the Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill down for consideration on this day.

The Business for consideration on the third Sitting Day will be arranged later and steps taken to inform hon. Members.

I shall ask the House to go into Secret Session in order to make a statement on the Recess, and to move a Motion.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Mr. Attlee: I spy Strangers.

SECRET SESSION.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

ADJOURNMENT (ACCELERATION OF MEETING).

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move,
That the Resolution (21st November) be read and amended as follows:—
Line 15, leave out 'in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker,' and insert 'or the Deputy-Chairman.' 
This Resolution is to authorise the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means to act in place of Mr. Speaker in calling the House together at an earlier date during the Adjournment, if necessary.

Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Eighteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]

Nineteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 107.]

Twentieth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]

Twenty-first Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 109.]

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — WAR SITUATION.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Last Tuesday, in the concluding passages of his speech in Committee of Supply the Prime Minister gave a short review of the war situation, placing against the facts which give us encouragement the continuing menace of the Nazi military machine. His review was necessarily brief, and I think the House would wish, before we part., for a more extended consideration of recent events and of the condition of our affairs. We should, I think, consider the existing situation in the light of past dangers overcome, and future perils against which we must guard, the first to prevent us from falling into exaggerated pessimism, and the second to save us from dangerous optimism, and I think, to indulge in the latter is probably our greatest temptation at the present time. There are satisfactory features in the present phase of the struggle which make it difficult for even the most philosophical of us to prevent, like Dr. Johnson's friend, cheerfulness from breaking in. But there is nothing wrong in being cheerful, provided we do not allow ourselves to relax our efforts.
We should recognise that our better situation is only comparative. Although we have come through great dangers and trials, we are still righting for our very existence against a very strong and ruthless enemy. One outstanding fact of the position to-day, as compared with a year ago, is that Hitler is now fighting on two fronts. That is a thing which the German leaders have always striven to avoid. This time last year we stood alone, expecting the full force of the Nazi effort to be turned against us, against this Island, which was then the only part of Europe in arms against him. He did attack us vigorously from the air, he did wage war unceasingly against us by sea, but the invasion, which then seemed imminent, has been postponed. Nothing could be more

foolish, however, than to imagine that postponement means abandonment. The possibility of that attempt being made remains, and must remain, a constant factor in all our considerations. We have to remain strictly on guard. Instructions have been given to all our Forces at home to bring to the highest state of readiness their preparations against invasion. Our Army at home is well-equipped and well-led.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The right hon. Gentleman refers to Hitler fighting on two fronts. Which are the two fronts?

Mr. Attlee: They are the West and the East. Our ground defences are incomparably stronger and our air strength immeasurably greater than they were 12 months ago. We are confident that should the enemy attempt invasion by sea or by air, he will be destroyed. But nothing whatever must be left to chance.
To-day our eyes are naturally turned to the gigantic struggle which is raging from the White Sea to the Black Sea. Throughout the" whole of that enormous battle area, the Russian Army and people are putting up a magnificent fight against the massed forces of Germany and the hangers-on of the Nazi regime. It would be very foolish for anyone to attempt to forecast what will be the outcome of that struggle, but it is abundantly plain that the plans of the German High Command for a rapid victory have not succeeded. As long ago as 13th July the Germans claimed that the Stalin line had been pierced at all decisive points, and that the roads to Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev were open. This claim has certainly not been substantiated. If these roads have been open all these weeks, why have not the Germans marched on their objectives? In the far North, Murmansk remains in Russian hands. Russian resistance is stubborn, and the enemy has a considerable way to go before the railway line from Leningrad to Murmansk is reached. On the South shore of the Baltic the thrust towards Leningrad has made no real progress recently. Tremendous fighting is taking place in the Smolensk area, but the way to Moscow is still far from being open, while in the Ukraine, Kiev, the capture of which the Germans claimed some three weeks ago, is still a bastion of the Russian defence. It is clear from the


communiqués of the German High Command that they have been disagreeably surprised by the determination, courage and fighting quality of the Russian Armies. They have discovered that even when the German armoured columns break through, the Russian troops, instead of surrendering, fight on, and even break out when apparently they are surrounded. From the tone of the German statement it would appear that they consider that is hardly playing the game. It may not be the Nazi game, but it is a winning game. The Russian Air Force continues to play its great part. It is quite clear that the Germans have sustained heavy losses in men and material. I am quite sure everybody in this country has been stirred by this splendid resistance to the invader.
As the House knows, we are doing our utmost to give all the assistance we can to our Russian Ally. A British Military Mission was at work in Moscow six days after the German invasion, and a Russian Mission has been at work in London for about the same time. We are taking urgent steps to furnish Russia with war materials and other supplies for which she has asked. The activities of our Fleet up in Kirkenes and elsewhere In the North show how, in the only area where physical contact with the Russian Forces is possible, we have lost no time to effect it. But above all, while the Russian Armies are stemming the attack in the East, our bombers are delivering increasingly heavy attacks on Western and Central Germany. Whenever weather conditions allow, our attacks proceed without cessation and with growing weight, while the depth to which our aircraft can penetrate increases as the nights lengthen. During the month of July alone, 70 attacks were made on towns in Germany, and 76 on towns in German-occupied territory. A heavy weight of bombs has been delivered and with great effect. These keen blows will be continued and intensified. In addition to the night bombing, there have been numerous offensive sweeps by fighter aircraft and daylight bombing raids with or without fighter protection. I do not think there can be any doubt as to the effect those attacks are having both on German morale and on German communications and industries.
In the Middle East our Air Force has been active, too. There have been 126

attacks on various targets, particularly on Beirut, Benghazi and Tripoli. In all these contests we have lost 285 aircraft, while we have destroyed for certain 410 units of the enemy's air fleet. In comparing these figures with those in other periods of the war when the ratio of aircraft destroyed was so much more in our favour, it must be remembered that the true standard is not that of September of last year. Then the Germans were attacking this country in force. It was the Germans who were sending their aircraft over here by daylight and losing tremendously. Now it is our turn to attack over enemy territory by night and by day, and the results show the evident superiority both of our men and machines. The House will not expect me to give any indication of the other steps which are being taken to help our Ally, but it may rest assured that within the limits of the practicable everything possible will be done. The essential feature of the aid that we can give is not that it should be spectacular, but that it should be effective.
Let me turn now to another part of the battle front. During the past two months the enemy has continued his efforts to achieve success in the Battle of the Atlantic. As was anticipated, he was able with the coming of spring to put an increasing number of U-boats into the water against us, and we in our turn had made early provision to meet this danger by providing more anti-submarine craft. The "Flower" class corvettes have been doing invaluable service as escorts to our convoys. In the course of the last two months, owing to the heavy' scale of our defence in home waters, the enemy has tended to range further and further a field, so that the sea battle is now fought over an immense area, extending far into the Atlantic towards the coasts of the United States of America, and far South in the tropical seas of North Africa. In this battle we have, of course, suffered severe losses, and we shall not be satisfied while those losses continue; but we can look back on the last two months with reasonable satisfaction. I cannot give the House detailed figures without presenting the enemy with information which he would very much like to have, but I can say-that our imports are maintained at a satisfactory figure in spite of all the enemy's efforts. Our convoys of vital supplies continue to arrive. From nth July to 28th


July, the enemy were unable to broadcast a single claim to a successful attack by U-boat. However, in the last few days of the month the U-boats did make contact with one of our southbound Atlantic convoys. A large force was employed and a great effort made, but a still greater effort was made by the Nazi propagandists. They claim to have sunk 116,000 tons of shipping, in addition to a corvette and a destroyer, while a vivid description was given of a destroyer squadron sailing round the convoy in zigzags, whilst an auxiliary cruiser directed the movements of the convoy and of the protective forces, which included Q-boats. The next day they raised the tonnage sunk to 140,000 tons. What are the real facts? There were no destroyers, there were no Q-boats and no auxiliary cruiser present, as the convoy was protected by corvettes which gave a very good account of themselves, as the U-boats have reason to know. I cannot give the exact details of tonnage sunk, but we know enough to state that the enemy's claim represents an exaggeration of at least 350 per cent. and probably 700 per cent. If there were really solid grounds for enemy satisfaction, it would be unnecessary to indulge in these flights of fancy.
No one of any judgment will contend that we have yet won the Battle of the Atlantic. But we can say that in this vital part of the battle we are holding our own and that the enemy has up to now failed to prevent the ordinary transport of food and munitions across the sea to this country. It is worth remembering that the war at sea is not just a question of defending our own ships and our trade routes against the enemy; it has also its offensive side. The more enemy ships we can destroy, the less is the chance of successful invasion and the more is the enemy hampered in all his operations. In addition to the losses inflicted upon him by the Royal Navy, the Air Force is taking an ever-increasing toll of his shipping. July was a good month. On the North Sea and Atlantic coasts we destroyed, damaged or put out of action 69 ships, amounting to a tonnage of 291,000 tons, and that is not accounting for hits made on small craft, barges, tugs and the like. In the Mediterranean the numbers were 23 ships, totalling 168,000 tons, while another 30 ships were hit and considerably damaged.

Attacks were also made on warships, with satisfactory results.
Apart altogether from the attacks on smaller units and the attacks on warships, 459,000 tons were sunk, damaged or put out of action in that month. When we consider that the target offered by the enemy is infinitely smaller than that which we afford to him, these results must certainly cause him anxiety and contribute to the need for putting out the extravagant claims to which I have referred. Members will have seen in the Press those vivid accounts of the successful convoy of stores through the danger zones of the Mediterranean, under constant attack by sea and from the air. It is difficult to praise too highly the conduct of those most difficult operations. They called for high skill and courage by our protecting naval and air forces, and the flag officers in charge have reported that the skill and determination of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy, who man the ships and convoys, is outstanding.
I would like here to call attention to the admirable work done by the Royal Navy in supporting the operations in Syria. The primary task for the Forces operating under Admiral King was to prevent supplies reaching the Vichy forces and this entailed the maintenance of patrols by day and night for five weeks. The result was that no sea-borne reinforcements and no effective supplies reached Syria during this period. But, in addition to this, the Fleet effectively supported our land Forces by bombardments from the sea and dealt successfully with attempts by Vichy warships to intervene in the conflict. Many of these were damaged, and although our own ships sustained some hurt, no ship was lost during these operations.
There is little new to say about the situation in the Middle East. The right flank of Egypt in Syria and Iraq has been cleaned up by the elimination of the Germans in the Levant. Our presence on the Turco-Syrian border will confirm and fortify our friendship and Alliance with the Turks and enable us to afford greater protection to the inhabitants of Cyprus. In the South-East only a small pocket of Italians is holding out at Gondar, helped by the rainy season, which makes operations very difficult. Elsewhere, in Abyssinia, the Emperor Hail Selassie with the


help of a Cabinet has begun the reconstruction of his country—the first country to be freed from the aggressor's yoke. Advisers have at his request been placed at his disposal by the Government, and financial assistance is being afforded. On the left flank, in Libya, while there is no major fighting to report, there is constant offensive patrol activity, both on the Libyan border and at Tobruk, where the vigour of our fighting patrols is keeping the enemy in such a state of continuous nervousness that he has to illuminate the desert at night by searchlights. Meanwhile, day by day and week by week tanks, guns, planes and supplies continue to arrive in the Middle East, and our reorganisation and training for the next forward movement will go on.
There is another great fact that differentiates our situation from that of last year. It is the vastly increased scale of assistance which we are receiving from the United States of America. Not only does this stream of material exceed anything which we received in the last war, but it is sent to us under the extraordinarily generous terms of the Lease-Lend Act. We have, as hon. Members will know, been recently honoured by the presence of Mr. Harry Hopkins, whose visit had for its main purpose the promotion of ever greater assistance under this Act, but important—very important—as is the physical help we are receiving, no less encouraging is the sense of spiritual unity between the English-speaking peoples. By independent but parallel action in relation to Japan, the United States of America and the British Commonwealth have again affirmed their community of interest wherever liberty is threatened. The House will remember statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 25th July and 30th July as to the action which was recently taken by Japan, with the forced consent of Vichy, to establish naval and air bases in South Indo-China, and also the economic measures which have been taken by the United States, the Netherlands Government and the Governments of the British Empire to meet that threat.
Despite official Japanese protestations that their motives are purely defensive, His Majesty's Government are maintaining the utmost vigilance, especially as the tone of the Japanese Press does not accord with that of the official assurances. For

instance, on 31st July, a leading Japanese newspaper remarked that it would be fortunate for the Netherlands East Indies if they were to learn from the despatch of troops to Indo-China and peacefully revise their attitude. There is also plenty of evidence that Japan is directing her attentions to Thailand in a manner which bears an ominous resemblance to that which preceded her incursion into Indo-China.
The House has already had an opportunity of welcoming the recent Polish-Soviet Agreement, which closes an unhappy chapter in the history of both these Allies of ours and will, we hope, open up the way to a happier future. A further step is the gathering together of the peoples of Europe and the world against the spirit of aggression and domination by Hitlerite Germany, as is shown by the full recognition now accorded to the Government of Czechoslovakia by His Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.S.S.R. We have been glad recently to welcome to these shores the young king of Yugoslavia, General Simovitch and other members of that Government. With the rulers and Governments of other countries overrun by the invader, who have taken refuge here pending the liberation of their countries, we are in the closest collaboration.
Men of many nations are now fighting alongside of us, but there are millions in Europe who are with us in the common cause. There is clear evidence of a rising tide of resistance to Hitler's rule in all the countries he has invaded. When Napoleon invaded and overran the greater part of Europe he was welcomed in many countries by large sections of the population. He was able to set up kingdoms and principalities without resistance; indeed, often with some acquiescence. It was many years before there was any real uprising of the nations. But no show of friendliness by the Nazis has been able to persuade the peoples of Europe at any moment, or even for a moment, to welcome Nazi rule. From the start, there has been solemn resentment and growing opposition; and it increases week by week and month by month. The "V" campaign is no stunt. It is not a project of a Goebbels propaganda machine, but the spontaneous expression of the desires and hopes of civilized


human beings who long for deliverance from barbarian rule. These hopes and desires are turning to us. It is to our victory that they look for salvation. Our aeroplanes flying over these countries, although they bear death and destruction, are welcomed because they are the messengers of life and freedom.
This great volume of support for our cause is a source of strength for us, but it must not lead us for a moment to relax our own efforts. The enemy is still very powerful. He may at any time turn his heavy weight of attack upon us. Because for the last few months air attacks have been fewer and less intense, we must not imagine that they will not sooner or later be renewed. We must continue to improve our defences. We must not think that because we have made progress in weapons against the night bomber, the night bomber has ceased to be a menace; and, although we have strengthened our armaments, the claims on our resources are very heavy, and there must be no- slackening of production. While we welcome help, it is for us to do our utmost. We have a great responsibility. The nations of Europe look to us, not only to destroy Hitlerism, but to show by practice, as well as by precept, the true alternative to Hitler's new order. In the British Commonwealth of Nations, a polity wherein the freedom of every part does not detract from the unity of the whole, we demonstrate how it is possible for peoples diverse in race, language and religion to work together on the basis of a common way of life. In the countries of the Commonwealth we show how men and women may hold different opinions and yet co-operate together for the common good. In this Commonwealth we show how, even in the midst of war, free criticism is not suppressed and justice is demanded even for people of hostile origin. We cannot foresee either the time or the circumstances of our victory; we cannot tell either the trials or the difficulties we have yet to endure; but we know that when victory comes, as come it will, we shall have to take a leading part in helping to establish a world of peace, freedom and social justice.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal has made a survey of the war which is very compact—so compact

that it is difficult to realise that he did in fact cover the whole field—and at the same time restrained. Nevertheless, behind the restraint of his statement, I think we can find reasons for fairly solid satisfaction with our existing conditions, and I think he was very right, while not asking us to indulge in undue optimism, to point out that we can with considerable thankfulness compare our situation to-day with that in which we stood at the corresponding Debate at this period of the Session last year. The Prime Minister in his last broadcast pointed out that there had been four climacterics in this war. The first was the fall of France, under the shadow of which we met this time last year and as a result of which there was, as far as I could see, only one people in the world who were convinced that we were going to survive—that was ourselves. Since then, before this Russian campaign began, two other of these turning points in the war have come to pass. The second was the Battle of Britain, and the third was the passage of the Lease-Lend Act, the importance of which I was very pleased to hear the Lord Privy Seal point out, because those two events are day by day swinging the long-distance forces of the war more and more on to our side, although it is, of course, a fact that it will be some time, well into the next year, before we have sufficient superiority in equipment to be able to take any initiative on a large scale.
In the Debates that follow these general statements, I sometimes think it is not of much value for speakers to wander over the whole field of the war and that it is better to confine themselves to positive suggestions on a more limited scale. Therefore, I am going to confine myself practically to one chief suggestion. I would like the Government, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, to consider whether the time is not arriving when political warfare may be just as important as military warfare can be. Hitherto, Hitler has led the way in political warfare, and it is largely through that that he has conquered a large part of Europe. We have not had a large supply of munitions for this kind of warfare, because we have not had very striking positive successes, but I am impressed by the fact that although we may still not have great dramatic victories, there is a shift in the whole balance of the war. Events are imperceptibly taking place as a result of


which a general situation has developed which may give us an opportunity for a political counter-offensive before much more time has passed. For that we ought to get ready now.
I will spend a few moments in surveying the war to explain why I have come to this conclusion. For some time one great anxiety that we have all felt was that although next year we may have the superiority, meanwhile Hitler might so dig himself in that it may be exceedingly difficult to dislodge him. That is why this Russian campaign has been rightly described by the Prime Minister as the fourth climacteric of this war. In this connection I was especially pleased with the tribute, which I take it was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, paid by the Lord Privy Seal to the valour and endurance of the Russian Armies.
With regard to this Russian campaign, the Lord Privy Seal was quite correct in pointing out that it was too early to make any prophecies. There seem to me, however, to be two conclusions which already stand out. Hitler, in most of his campaigns in Europe, for instance, in Poland and Yugoslavia, has hitherto been able to win lightning victories because he has broken the communications and supplies of the opposing forces so that they were never able to mobilize—in fact, he won his victories without meeting the main forces at all. It has always been well known that it would take the Russian Army at least five or six weeks to mobilise, and Hitler may have had good reasons for thinking that this strategy could be repeated. But already that possibility has been destroyed, and it is fairly clear now, however many Russian towns he may take, that he will not reach a decision by disposing or the Russian Army. The other factor is that if he is to get a decision, he has to obtain it before the winter, otherwise the Russians will have an opportunity of reorganising, which they will be able to undertake with the now promised assistance of the United States. This is leading up to the political warfare I have mentioned. I am trying to show how the war is shifting its balance into a favourable situation.
The Lord Privy Seal devoted a passage of his speech to the operations in the Mediterranean. I consider that he would have been justified in pointing out how,

in the end, these operations affect the broad final issue. We have had our disappointments, in Crete and in Greece, as well as our triumphs, but the fact is that, if we now look back, we see that the obstinate delaying actions of the British Forces in the Mediterranean and in the Middle East have taken away from Hitler the one thing he could not afford, and that is time. We now see that the supreme justification for all the operations in the Mediterranean is that Hitler is now acting within a time-limit. We are now seeing him forced practically to begin from the beginning, and forced to take an immense risk at this stage in this speculative Russian adventure after he has conquered the whole of Europe. That is a fact which we ought not to forget when we speak about the Russian resistance. The enormous part which the Mediterranean campaign has played in precipitating it may prove to be Hitler's final undoing. These are the reasons why it has seemed to me for some days past that political warfare should now be regarded as being in the forefront of our war services. I know that when one says that, I may be told, "Of course, everyone agrees with you about that." But I mean that the Government ought to concentrate now on this form of warfare with the same intensity they have hitherto shown in the Mediterranean operations.
There is a great danger that the part which political warfare can play may be under-estimated, because of the dilemma that when we have not much success it can be said there is no opportunity for political warfare, and when we have success it can be said there is not much need for it. When nations have to make a frightfully difficult decision, the balance is often turned by the minority which is not quite sure of its mind. That happened in France. That balance can be affected by propaganda and political warfare. I say it happened in France. I believe the final vote on the decision to capitulate was carried by only one vote, and undoubtedly the men who surrounded M. Reynaud—quite a small number of men—could have shifted the balance into one direction or another at that critical moment. It was the propaganda of Germany in the previous six months which was able to turn the scales, and that is why political warfare may be more important than battles. If I am right in saying that it is the


propaganda of Germany which turned the scales, then it means that propaganda robbed us of the French Navy, of the French Air Force, of the French colonial territories, and committed us to a campaign in Syria, and is now involving us in extra difficulties in Indo-China.
I foresee terrible and frightful times facing the nations of Europe in the next few months. There may be equally perplexing situations in which the balance may be turned without a very large margin of safety, and where political warfare may play a decisive part. I am glad, therefore, that the Lord Privy Seal referred to the part which can be played by the enslaved nations of Europe. There are tens of millions of Fifth Columnists now on our side who are available in Europe, and the position of Hitler may be very easily turned into a liability. He is not getting any troops from them, and he has exhausted all the loot he captured. He cannot use them to any large extent for production so long as we keep our grip on the raw materials, and they have open to them methods of ca' canny, non-co-operation, sabotage and other methods of unarmed warfare which the Gestapo cannot prevent, and which will surround them with a most terrible and murderous enemy.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend say in what countries he is suggesting political warfare should be carried out for this purpose? Does he include Germany?

Mr. Lees-Smith: For the moment I was referring to what are called occupied countries, because the Lord Privy Seal devoted a special passage in his speech to them. I had intended saying something about Germany, and I am coming to that point now. I think we have to face this fact. Whatever happens in Russia, Germany remains with one great advantage. She has round about 250 divisions, and it needs very little calculation to show that our man-power cannot provide an Army approaching that figure. This is again where political warfare comes in. Even if Russia stands on the defensive successfully, that will not make it easy for us to conquer Europe by mere military means—by pushing through and driving the Germans back from the Russian frontier. In the last war we certainly broke the Hindenburg line, but German was

broken from within, and it was the demoralisation of the home front that led to the disintegration of the German army. That is the lesson that we have to learn. I begin to realise the intense apprehension with which the German General Staff is watching this possibility. I notice a very great contrast between the kind of appeals to the people of this country and the kind of appeal that is made in Germany. When a year ago the Prime Minister told his colleagues that all he could offer them was blood and tears and toil and sweat, the people of this country thought it applied to them and regarded it as a stimulating observation. I notice now, in reading the communiqués of the German General Staff week by week, that they do not dare to allow the German people to be disappointed for a single week, and that is why at this stage we may soon reach a period when political warfare may shorten the length of the war by months.
This brings me to a point upon which I think the House will have to make up its mind. I have for some time discussed this question of political warfare with those concerned, Civil Servants and others who have had to give their attention to it for many months, and I find that a very large number of them say it would be very difficult to produce any great disintegration among the German people unless they have some idea as to what is going to be the alternative to Hitler. This is not asking for peace aims. It is practical strategy. The Prime Minister has invited the German people to break the Nazi regime to pieces. If they do so, what then? We must show them some light at the end of the tunnel. I do not regard this in fact as a very difficult problem for us to face. I have listened to a good many discussions here and have read in the Press of what are called peace aims, but I think there is a great distinction between political and economic peace aims. Political peace aims appear to me to be simple. They must prevent Germany plunging Europe into war for a sixth time, and I do not know that at this stage we need go more into detail than that. What I think the Government should take into account is that at this moment, in Germany, I am sure, and even in Europe, economics are more important than politics, and, Unless we solve Germany's economic problem, no political constitution will survive. My


belief is that the old German trade unionist, the old German Social Democrat, who, as a matter of fact, is a considerable part of the armies of occupation throughout Europe now, and who never voted for Hitler while he was free, is more interested in economics, and what he is trying to visualise is the choice that he has between Hitler and starvation.
I see no great difficulty, because, reading the speeches of various Members of the Government, it appears to me that we have an economic policy for the German people which is humane and which is reassuring. The Prime Minister stated in one of his most famous speeches, on 20th August last year, that he was collecting great reserves of food and raw material which would be immediately rushed to the assistance of Europe, and in particular of the German and Austrian peoples, as soon as the war ended. The Foreign Secretary last week, in a passage which I thought very far-sighted and very comprehensive, pointed out that it was not our policy to cause Germany to collapse economically. He said that a starving Germany would be poison to the whole of Europe, and that certainly means that in the task of economic salvage and economic reconstruction as the result of the appalling impoverishment which will face Europe as soon as the war is over, and which it will be one of our first tasks to deal with, Germany will be taken into account.
I do not think more is necessary. I am not asking for an extended statement. It has been stated, but I think it ought to be made clear. My practical suggestion is this: The Government under the Minister of Reconstruction is drawing up its plans for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. I think we should be prepared with economic plans so as to be ready to make them public and put them before the people of Europe, and particularly of Germany, when the moment for an economic counter-offensive arises. That is what I should like to see done. I recognise that we shall have to choose the right moment, but I feel that the right moment may come before very long. It may come before we have a big full-dress discussion on the war again. The war up to the present has certainly shown that political warfare can play a part which is as important as battles or campaigns.

Mr. Nunn: I do not wish to follow the very interesting speculations of the right hon. Gentleman, but I would ask leave to occupy the House on one specific point, the position in the Far East, especially in relation to Japan's action in Indo-China. I suppose there is not a single Member of the House who has not known for a long time the very definite policy of Japan. It is not a new policy. Somewhere about 1887 the late Lafcadio Hearn laid down in black and white, in lectures to young military students in Tokyo, practically all that has been going on in the. last few years. There is no. question that Japanese policy has been both definite and deliberate, but we have seen a great development in the last few days. Japan is now definitely installed in Indo-China. What I want to refer to particularly is the great danger which now menaces the adjoining country of Thailand. One hopes that Thailand will escape. On the other hand, all the indications are that she is at the moment in great danger.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he can give the House any indication—although it may be difficult for him to do so—of the line the Government are going to follow in connection with the threat to Thailand. Japan now stands on the border of that country. The territory between Indo-China and the main portion of Thailand, especially when the rainy season is over, is very good for mechanical transport. It is a very dry country and one can go over it for weeks at a time and hardly find water. So that communication from the east into Thailand is one of the easiest things possible. There are plenty of airfields and there is nothing in the way of physical obstruction to supply and communications. Again, from the sea Thailand is particularly vulnerable and despite the courage and spirit of its people it has no adequate force with which to withstand occupation.
Japan is already in Indo-China and she may perhaps in a few days be in Thailand. How does that affect us? Before we consider that we may perhaps consider how it affects Thailand. It is true that since the revolution of 1932, which was very mild as revolutions go, Thailand has become increasingly friendly towards Japan. It is a natural revulsion of feeling among the new members of the Government against the old system of westernisation.
Thailand has never had any intention of breaking relationships with those old friends of hers who, after all, have done some good work for her and have felt a real affection for her. We in this country have always stood well with the Thai people. We have done them some service and they have done us very valuable service. During the last war they sent us a small expeditionary force to this country, but that was not the really valuable help they gave us. I happen to know about it because I was connected with the work which they were helping to carry out. They did very friendly work to this country at that time, and I am sure that everyone, especially the old stagers in Thailand, will regret very much if any break should occur between their country and ours. They may be forced into that decision. If Japan begins to put heavy pressure on them they may not be able to withstand it and they may be forced into the position of ranging themselves with the Axis. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not have the faintest desire to visit such an action with even the mildest form of disapproval because he would understand better than anyone else how helpless they are. He would understand that in their hearts they do not want to break with us. I have some slight personal interest in the connection between the two countries being maintained. I ought to acknowledge that interest because it is to some degree financial.
I feel, apart from that, however, that it would be a great tragedy to Thailand if the break occurred. It would be a greater tragedy for us. The position of the Japanese in Indo-China is dangerous enough, but if they move into Thailand our position would be even more serious. We should find the Japanese on the borders of Burma and just north of the Federated Malay States. I know that certain pundits in the Press have made great play with the fact that there are great inpenetrable jungles between Thailand and Burma and between Thailand and the Federated Malay States. I should not like to use a colloquial phrase in regard to that, but it is really so much nonsense. Between Thailand and Burma on the extreme north there are three perfectly serviceable roadways which have been used for motor traction for many years past.

Lower down there is another perfectly serviceable road; and another lower down still at a place usually known as the Isthmus of Kra. I think I am the only Member who has walked over that isthmus, and I did it mainly in the beds of streams. To-day, however, there is a good road which mechanised forces could pass over in a few hours. It runs from the Gulf of Siam and finishes up on the borders of Burma. Lower down still there is a first-class road which has been there for 35 years. It would bring the Japanese out on the Bay of Bengal side in a commanding position in relation to the Malacca Straits and, indeed, Penang. On the east coast at Singora there is a large inland sea which dredging at the bar could make into good harbourage. Lower still in Patani Bay there is harbourage which is perfectly good except in the north-east monsoon. Dredging again would make first-class harbourage. In 1605 John Davies of arctic fame was killed here by Japanese pirates. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Japanese pirates are again operating in that area now. There are these two potential harbours which would bring the Japanese on the borders of Penang. There are railways on both sides of the country.
The seizure of Thailand would mean a direct threat to Burma and a much more serious threat than anything which could, be imagined in connection with the seizure of Indo-China. I need not emphasise how serious a disturbance in Burma might be especially if coupled with a disturbance on the North-West Frontier of India and trouble in Turkistan so that there would be a threat on both sides at once. Is it possible for the Government to give serious attention to what appears to me to be the only way to stop further adventures on the part of the Japanese, and that is to declare in definite, unmistakable terms that if any further step is taken, it will be equal to a declaration of war? I know that it is a serious thing to do, but it would not really make things much worse than the position we are in, because if the Japanese go into Thailand, obviously they are going to fight us, and it is much better to take the position by the horns and to make our move on them first, before they get thoroughly settled. I know there are tremendous difficulties in the way, but all warfare is full of difficulties—I know the difficulty in connection


with the United States—and I submit most earnestly that we shall be in a much worse position if we leave it until the Japanaese have established themselves in Thailand. It is much more difficult to throw anybody out of a position than to prevent them from getting in, and there is the possibility that a definite declaration of the character I have suggested might well halt the Japanese. It is what we are playing for, We do not want war, but we do want them to stop where they are.
The Japanese have made a great conquest. They have conquered Indo-China. It may be that that conquest might be of sufficient face-saving value to them to modify their action as regards China. It might well play some part in preventing worse work in China. It might even work towards causing them to withdraw from the Chinese undertaking, and in that way we might be doing a great service to China. It is just possible that the Japanese, if they were told quite definitely that any further action on their part would mean war, would reconsider the situation, and even if they did not, I think we should be no worse off. I know how the fuller information which is possessed by the Foreign Office may change the whole aspect of the situation, but we who are outside feel very great anxiety about what is happening out there, not only on account of that gallant little country-Thailand, which has been free throughout all its history—the word "Thai" means free—but because our own definite Empire interests in the Far East rest upon halting Japan where she is. It is possible that she would halt, and with all the earnestness at my command I express the hope that His Majesty's Government will take this matter into the gravest consideration and that if they are to act, they will act quickly. A day, two days, three days may be too late. It is ho good calculating and discussing the position for weeks. If anything is to be done, it must be done now, and I hope it will be done.

Commander King-Hall: Before I speak on the particular aspect of this subject which I should like to touch upon, I should like to support the appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn). I served in the Far East, and in my particular job I had to study Far Eastern politics, and I believe the hon. Member

will agree with me that it is a fundamental characteristic of Japanese policy that whenever the Western Powers are in difficulty in Europe or in any other part of the world the Japanese take advantage of that fact to try and sneak some slight advantages to themselves in the Far East. They generally ask for much more than they have any hope of getting, as witness 21 demands on China in 1915, and as soon as they see any signs of real resistance there is some chance that they will halt. There are certain clashes in Japan between the Choshu and Satsuma clans representing the military and naval authorities, on the one hand, and certain perhaps rather timid elements on the business side, and there is not complete unanimity behind the scenes in Japan, and I agree with the hon. Member that if appeasement is no good against Germany, it is absolutely useless against the Japanese. It is not understood by them except as evidence of material weakness.
In the few minutes during which I shall address the House I want to back up the speech made by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). The Lord Privy Seal said in his speech, and I agree that it is a very important point, that we have now got our enemy fighting on, at any rate partially, two fronts. I feel that what we have to do is to make him fight on three fronts, and the third is this front of political warfare. In surveying the general war situation my right hon. Friend did not say very much about propaganda. He mentioned the "V" campaign, and that helps as far as it goes, and as long as there is a possibility of its going a great deal farther than the mere gesture which it is at present, the little which was said about propaganda, or as I prefer to call it, political warfare, sems to me to be significant and frankly that the position is unsatisfactory, I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the Government do not at present attach that importance to political warfare which I think should be attached to it, and I feel that many other Members agree with me, and I am sure also that the country instinctively feels that we are not doing anything like so much as we ought in the field of political warfare.
There was recently a Debate upon the work of the Ministry of Information, and it was really a most extraordinary occasion, because hot a word was said, except


from the Government Benches, in support of the proposals which the Government were putting forward. Unfortunately, that Debate centred round a "red herring," the question whether the Service Departments or the Ministry of Information should have the last word in issuing news to the Press. While that is an important point, it really is a matter of detail, and has nothing to do with political warfare at all. What has happened, so far as I could judge from the Debate, is that we have got back to what we had in the last war, a news department, and I am sure the new Minister of Information will be a very efficient Minister in charge of the news department; but that is all a matter of detail and of no importance from the point of view of political warfare.
The other thing which came out in that Debate, as far as I was able to follow the conclusions of the Government, was that in future the Foreign Office, with the assistance of an additional official there, will issue "directives" to the Ministry of Information on political warfare matters. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary will tell us something about how that is working, and what directives have been issued, but I hope that he will not take refuge too much in the idea that we must not give any publicity to this subject, because in regard to political warfare the argument that things must be kept secret has very little validity. If we really want to get propaganda out in a big way, the only real objection to putting it out in this way in public is, perhaps, that a certain amount of time has to be devoted to meeting criticism, often perhaps uninformed criticism, from our own people. The argument about secrecy has nothing of the same validity in this matter as in connection with military operations.
So far as I can understand and follow the present position, we are still in a state of affairs in which there are really four organisations concerned with political warfare. There is the Foreign Office, which will issue directives on policy. Then there is the B.B.C. No doubt two arguments can be put up there, either that it is independent or that it is not, and a case can be made out for both according to the views of the speaker. But for ail practical purposes the B.B.C, through the various people who are asked

to broadcast, is an organ of political warfare. I can assure the House that people who broadcast, with the best desire to follow any line that His Majesty's Government think it useful to give them, do not find it at all easy to discover what the actual line is. Then there is the Ministry of Information, which in various ways is connected with political warfare matters. There is another organisation which perhaps I had better not specify by name.
We cannot pretend to take political warfare seriously until we have a Minister whose job it is to co-ordinate those different bodies. I do not think I object to the existence of the separate bodies. Possibly it is advisable to have separate machinery to deal with separate aspects of the matter, but I am certain there is nothing like the co-ordination there ought to be among their activities. As was clear from a Question I asked yesterday to which I got the "No, Sir," answer it is evidently not the Government's intention to take any action on the lines of setting up a Minister of political warfare who should have a chief executive who should sit with the Chiefs of Staff. Until we get are cognition that the Minister as chief executive should have the status of a Chief of Staff nothing will convince me that we are taking political warfare seriously. In total warfare, especially total war which is ideological, it is essential' that the political warfare should be co-ordinated with and linked with the military operations.
Let me give a small practical example. So far as one knows, we are in contact with the German army in two places, Tobruk and somewhere near Sollum. During the months that we have been in such contact has any political warfare been carried out in relation to the German troops? I am certain it would have been, had the organisation of Dr. Goebbels been in a similar position. Are we carrying out political warfare in Libya behind the German lines? I do not know, but I see no evidence that it is going on. What is being done in regard to the Italians?
There are people who say that political warfare is not really of great importance. I cannot help feeling that this is also the general opinion of the Government. I would like to give the House briefly some reasons why I think that that is not a


sound opinion, and why I think that political warfare is of vital importance, and never, more so than during a total war of an ideological character. All military operations are undertaken in order to break the enemy's will to resist. You carry out military operations against the enemy in order to make them change their minds. This is a simple way of putting it—too simple for staff colleges, where this idea has to be wrapped up in long words. But it is an accurate statement of the facts. While you are doing military operations, it is common sense and perfectly practicable to launch a psychological offensive against the enemy. You say things to them in order to cause them to reflect and to weaken their resistance. This method of adding to your military operations has various advantages. In order to carry out military operations you need very prolonged preparation by putting up factories, collecting raw material and securing manpower. None of those things is required in political warfare, which needs relatively unimportant and inexpensive machinery to put ideas across.
What is our plan at the present time? What are we proposing to put across? In one part of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal it seemed that the right hon. Gentleman held out the general framework and Constitution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I entirely agree with him. It seems a most admirable method by which independent peoples can work together, but does it mean that we are painting a picture of something like it for Europe after the war? If so, we had better say something about it. What have we actually said? For purposes of my own, I have collected all the statements that have been made by Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and other eminent persons since 1939. Although I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley said, there is a great deal in these collected statements that could be put to effective use, particularly upon the economic side. If Dr. Goebbels has collected these statements on the other side, he can paint a different picture. I defy the Lord Privy Seal or anybody else to make a summary of what they amount to, because authority for almost any point of view can be found in them.

One simply cannot wage political warfare until one has cleared away all these divergencies and produced a simple statement indicating a general line. The other day the Prime Minister made a statement at the County Hall, which I thought was of the greatest importance. He said we should continue to hit the Germans until we had destroyed the Nazis, and then he used these words:
But it would be better still if the German people would rise up and do this.
That is 60 per cent. of what is required for political warfare, but you need a little bit more. You need some indication of the benefits that will be derived by Germans who are prepared to do this kind of thing, as well as of the penalties which will fall upon them if they do not take such action. If we could get a substantial number of Germans to rise up and assist us in destroying this abominable regime, the conversion would be much more permanent than if we had to win the war without assistance from anybody inside Germany. Looking to the future, I say that we want a body of people inside Germany who could say, "We risked our lives and did dangerous things in order to destroy the Nazi régime."
Almost exactly the same situation arose in 1918. If the House will excuse me, I will read a few lines from an interesting memorandum produced in 1918 by a body of people who were got together in Crewe House at that time. They included the editor of the "News Chronicle," Mr. Wickham Steed, foreign editor of the "Times," Dr. Headlam Morley, and others. The memorandum used these words:
It has become manifest that for the purposes of an efficient pro-Ally propaganda in neutral and enemy countries, a clear and a full statement of the war aims of the Allies is vitally necessary. What is wanted is something in the nature of an authoritative text to which propagandists may refer with confidence and which can be made the standard of their activities. It is not sufficient to recount the sins of Germany and to assert that the defeat of Germany is the Allied war aim. What all the world desires to know is what is to happen after the war. The real war aim of a belligerent, it is more and more understood, is not merely victory, but a peace of a certain character which that belligerent desires shall arise out of that victory. What, therefore, is the peace sought by the Allies?…
That passage from the memorandum of 1918 might have been written to-day. It


was not until Lord Northcliffe's opinion that propaganda must be based upon and related to policy, was accepted by the Government, that British propaganda began to have that effect on the enemy to which grudging tribute has been paid by Hitler, Ludendorff and other German leaders. The kind of question upon which we have to make up our minds in a general way in this, and I know it is an awkward question, upon which there will be differences of opinion in different parts of the House. Is a distinction to be made between the Nazi regime and, at any rate, a section of the German people? Are we to try and drive a wedge between them? Some prominent and authoritative people say "Yes," and some say that we should not. I wish to put my own view very frankly. I think that we should try to drive such a wedge. I agree with the analysis made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley about the; military outlook. I think we have to face up to the fact that it is a difficult military situation. It is impossible to say what may happen in two, three or four years' time, but at the moment we have a rather formidable task on our hands, and it is no use trying to avoid that conclusion.
If the Russian front holds, which one hopes it will—and there is a possibility that it may—then obviously that will cause a profound impression inside Germany, and favourable circumstances will be created for us to strike hard at them on the psychological front as well as striking at them with bombs. I have found an extraordinary idea among some people that if one is keen on political warfare, one wants to fight a kind of "cissy" war without dropping bombs. That is quite incorrect; the more bombs dropped on enemy bodies the more vulnerable their minds become; the more we can assault their bodies, the more susceptible their minds will be to our argument, and I do hope it will be understood that those who advocate political warfare are not asking that there; should be any reduction of physical pressure on the enemy. If, on the other hand, things do not go as well as we hope they will in Russia, our military position will be even less satisfactory than it is now, and it will be more than ever necessary for our military operations to be supplemented and assisted by political war.
Here I would like to add a word of warning, because it is all involved in the

importance or otherwise of political warfare, on the question of bombing. I think it is rather dangerous to assume that by aerial bombardment material damage can be caused of such a vast and far-reaching character that the enemy will be forced to surrender. I sincerely hope I am wrong in that estimate, but I think we should be cautious in thinking that too much can be done by bombing. History shows that the defence always catches up with the attack in due course, and it would not altogether surprise me if the historians of the future said that in 1941–42 bombing reached the kind of peak reached by the submarine in 1917. I think it is arguable that night-fighting methods, ground defence, dispersal and so forth will considerably slow up—I will put it no stronger than that—the rapid progress which aerial bombardment has made up to the present time. If we look at our own situation, we must honestly admit that if we had taken some elementary precautions, a lot of the damage done in this country need not have been done. The enemy will learn from his experiences, as we have done. Psychologically, we may perhaps expect more from it there, but here again I must say that those who are suffering psychologically from air bombardment are those who at the same time are more susceptible to political warfare.
I feel that the Government sometimes have a perfectly legitimate grievance in regard to the criticisms which are made, inasmuch as they can say that the critics do not put forward any constructive ideas. I have an idea to put forward, and although I have been very critical on the subject of political warfare, I hope that the Government will understand that in putting forward such criticism one is trying to be helpful. I think the first rule which would have to be adopted by any person appointed as a Minister of Political Warfare would be, "I must create an agenda for controversy inside Germany." Then he will have to say, "How do I set about that?" The general line on which I should proceed in such circumstances would be as follows: I would not, of course, have any communication with the Nazi regime, but I would say to the German people, "You have been promised a famous New Order by your leaders. It is to be a new heaven upon earth, and you are going to be in a very favoured position. I will not argue with


you about the merits or nonsenses of your New Order, but your leader also says one profound truth, and that is that you will never get it so long as the British are standing on their legs, you will never get it until the British are destroyed. "Then I would say, "He is absolutely right, you have no hope of getting a New Order while Great Britain is standing on her legs. What you are certain to get is a permanent war order, of an increasingly uncomfortable character, because not only are we on our legs, but we are being reinforced by the Americans, and we can assure you that your position will go on being increasingly uncomfortable." Strange though it may perhaps appear that I should say this when we are still on the defensive—and I will explain in a moment why I should do it—I would then say, "You have to appease us before you can get rid of this permanent war order. I am ready to tell you right away how you can appease us, and if you want to stop this permanent war order, you can only do it by accepting our minimum conditions. You must get right out of every single occupied territory and get back inside the pre-Munich frontier. If you will do that as an actual act—promises are no good—the bombing and so forth may stop."
My purpose in putting forward a proposition of that character is that I find it utterly impossible to believe that any Nazi regime or leader could possibly get away with suggesting to the Germans, after all their great victories and sacrifices, that the circumstances of the war had now reached such a pitch that they had to get out of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, France, Greece, etc., in a vast evacuation. It seems to me that that is where an agenda for controversy might arise, because sooner or later Goebbels will have to go to the leaders and say, "What is the story for this season? Am I to go on telling them that the British will be knocked out in three months' time? It will be very difficult to persuade the Germans of that, when more and more four-engined bombers are going over every night and when the blockade is becoming better and better, and when large coastal raids are taking place "—and I may remark in parenthesis that I hope to hear about them in the not too distant future, for coastal raids are one of the Army's important roles.

"How can I go to the German people," Goebbels will say, "and tell them that we are going to knock the British out this season? It does not make sense. What story am I to give them?" That is where I see controversy starting in the Nazi party, and possibly also between the Nazi party and the German General Staff. Once that sort of thing starts happening, it is impossible to say what will follow, but you have got something started, the avalanche is moving and then you can go ahead with the campaign for stirring up trouble in the oppressed territories.
One last point. Some people may argue that this is not the time to say that kind of thing, because it will look like a sign of weakness. My reply to that is that the Germans, at the moment, would, I expect, think it rather ridiculous if we suggested to them that they should now pack up their bags and retreat inside the pre-Munich frontier. I would rather like them to say that. I would reply, "Wait and see," and then, after six months of an intensive campaign of bombing, I would say to them, "Does it seem so funny now? I am not saying that because we have survived the winter. I am saying now what I said six months ago, when you were led to believe that you were on top of the world." I am only sorry that we did not say what I have suggested, or something along those lines, six months ago, so that we could now be saying to the Germans, "Now, look back, and see if it was so ridiculous." Therefore, I do ask the Government, most earnestly and sincerely, to look into this question of political warfare seriously. If they do not accept what I say, let them set up a small committee to see what can be done to use political warfare in a big way. I do beg of them to take political warfare much more seriously. I honestly believe that it is perhaps the chief key to victory, certainly a most important factor in victory.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate until I heard the two last speeches, because it seems to me that it is extremely difficult for any private Member in this House to offer his opinions on matters of this war and its conduct without the knowledge which the Government possess. I listened to the statement made by the Lord Privy


Seal, and I felt that I could have made it myself without any kind of information available to the Lord Privy Seal. He scarcely touched, for instance, on the two subjects which have been dealt with so effectively by the two last speakers. Take what the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) has just said. It seems to me that this matter of political warfare has scarcely been dealt with at all. I am perfectly certain we shall never get any satisfactory solution until what he has suggested is carried out, that is to say, that a representative of the Minister of Propaganda, or of the Minister of Information, should sit on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and political warfare has become what it ought to be—one of the prime methods of defeating the enemy in this war. It is quite clear that at the present time we are in a much better position than at this time last year. No one disputes that for a single moment. It is equally clear that we are not in a position in which we can effectively help in the resistance which is being offered by the Russians to the German invader, and we have to face the fact that, at a time when we ought, if we were sufficiently prepared, to be in a position to take offensive action, and real offensive action, against the Germans in occupied territories, we are not really in a position to do so.
I agree entirely with what the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk has said, (hat political warfare and its prosecution must be accompanied by a vigorous offensive all the time. We have to show the German people that we can, even if we are not in a position to attack them on land at the moment, make life utterly impossible for them at home. I personally welcome every intensification of the air offensive at the present time. To turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn) said, it seems to me that he, with his great local knowledge of the situation in that part of the world of which he spoke, has given the Government extremely wise advice. I am sure that if we are to maintain our position in the Far East, it is high time, I do not say to call the Japanese bluff, but to show the Japanese that we do not intend any longer to submit to the kind of action which they are taking at the present time. If one is a private Member one is faced at once with the difficult position, when one makes a statement of this kind, that one does not

know whether we are really in a position at the present time to stand up to the Japanese. I should like to know from the Government whether they are satisfied that our position is sufficiently strong in that part of the world.
I remember that, in the old days, when I had a certain part in the direction of affairs, we were always being challenged with the fact that at a time of great economic stress we went on with the defence of Singapore. I do not suppose that any Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, regrets that we stood up to the opposition we received in those days, and went on with the strengthening of Singapore. What one does want to know is whether, at the present time, should matters really come to a head, we can be satisfied that our defences in the Pacific area are sufficient for the purposes they may be called upon to endure. I did not find any indication in the statement of the Lord Privy Seal on this matter. I venture to suggest that any Member of this House could have made the speech which the Lord Privy Seal made, and could have made it equally well, because it really contained no information that we did not already possess.
It is quite obvious to me, and quite obvious, I think, to any Member of this House, that it is wholly undesirable at the present time that the Japanese should be allowed to instal themselves in Indo-China or anywhere else in that part of the world, because it threatens us very gravely in India. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle said, it is a grave threat to India. I should like to know from the Lord Privy Seal, or whoever replies for the Government, whether he is satisfied that our defences of India are sound and adequate to meet anything that can be brought against them.
Finally, I should like once again to emphasise the importance of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, because I am certain of this, that if we are to beat Germany soon, if we are to end this war, we cannot lose a single opportunity of using propaganda to the best effect. I agree with him that at this particular moment it may, when the Germans are the masters, so to speak, of every other nation on the Continent, seem ridiculous for us to say that we in this country are determined that Hitler's


Empire shall not endure and that the new order shall not be established. But you have to sow the seed, you have to make the German people realise what I have tried to make every German with whom I have come into contact realise, that this Empire will not let Germany take its place in the world, that we are determined to maintain our position and that we are certain we shall do so. If you can get that across; if you can begin to make the enemy realize that, although they have been successful everywhere, they are hated everywhere and have failed to make the people under them happy and contented to receive them; then, although they have the whole world at their feet, sooner or later, when they are less successful, when the bombing continues, when they make no further progress, you may create a rift in the lute, without which I am perfectly certain you are not going to beat this particular German attempt to dominate the world. I beg the Government to realise the importance of propaganda, and to study it in a much more effective way than they have done up to the present.

Mr. Martin: Before I turn to the main subject on which I wish to speak, I would like to refer to the Government's warning to the nation to make all possible preparations against events which may follow from 1st September. If it is important—and I have no doubt that the Government have reason to think it is important—that we should be prepared for the events of September, there should be more collaboration between the central authorities and the local authorities on food distribution. At present, the local authorities have no knowledge of the plans of the central authorities on this matter. At least one tactic of the Germans in the event of invasion in this country may be to cut off the big towns, and so present them with a serious problem. In that event, it would be of great importance that collaboration between the central authorities and the local authorities should be as close as possible before the situation arises. I do not want to pursue that matter further now. It is a question which cannot be pursued closely in public debate. One of the disadvantages from which we suffer in this House is that, although public

debate is highly desirable from the point of view of the nation, there are a great many matters which Members have to take up privately with Ministers, and, therefore, the public do not know what is actually taking place in Parliament.
My next point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall). He referred to counter-propaganda with the German forces. I hope that the Ministry of Information and the War Office are very well prepared with counter-propaganda in the event of the Germans ever effecting a footing, even for a short time, on these shores. I hope that there are already in the files of the Ministry of Information copies of the "Volkischer Beobachter," etc., to be distributed among the German people, with information about crises in Germany and so on.
That brings me to my main subject. It is a question which was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), and referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk. There is no doubt that the Germans are undergoing a very severe psychological test. In Germany a great measure of discontent and mistrust of the Nazi regime is slowly growing up in all the great centres, and even in the countryside. It is clear that even a nation of 80,000,000 has not illimitable resources in manpower and in materials to face the array of force against them. They are in an exceedingly disadvantageous position. We must take into account that Hitler may have gone into Russia, not from motives of strength but from motives of weakness, not to clear the Russian threat away before he sprang upon this country, but because he believed that the Russian Government intended eventually to come down on the side which they believed to be strongest, because he believed that the Russian Government on balance desired that the democracies should win, and because he thought that the moment the democracies showed signs of being superior to Germany on sea, on land and in the air, and as soon as it appeared certain that their resources would wear down the German people, the Russians, in their full strength, would make terms with the democracies regarding the resettlement of the world after the war. It may be that Hitler and the Nazi regime desired to forestall that position, desperate


as the gamble was, in order to take refuge in a stalemate, which might enable the Nazis to get out of the position in which they found themselves, without the ultimate catastrophe, in which they would be certain to go down. If that is true, it is clear that Hitler is to-day, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has intimated, faced with an extraordinarily grave situation. He finds himself faced not with victory, but with virtual defeat. Time is against him, and as the summer runs out and he fails to make progress towards Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev, he is in an entanglement from which there is no escape. The position is one which has no issue except the defeat of the entire Nazi regime.
If that is so, we have to take advantage of the situation, which is materially different from that with which we were faced a few months ago. Are we taking advantage of that situation in our propaganda to Germany and the occupied countries? I hope that my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he replies to the Debate will tell us something about it. Following upon what my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, I want to make the point that propaganda can have any real meaning only if it is based on policy. That obviously presents us with the dilemma that if we are to make our propaganda effective we have to adumbrate our policy, not only to our own people but to the world. There are many and considerable objections to telling the German people in any detail, or even in broad general outline, what we are going to do with them if we gain the victory. There are objections which start in this House. There are hon. Members who hold very divergent views. Some think—and who should blame them?—that we should exact from the German people the ultimate measure of retribution for the crimes they have committed not only against this country but against humanity. There are others who think, not that that is an unjust or an unreasonable point of view, but that it is most certainly unwise. It is extraordinarily important at this juncture that we should reconcile those different points of view. We have our differences, which will spring up again when the war is over, but at the phase which the war is now undoubtedly approaching it is important that the nation should remain united. There are objections to issuing in any detailed form what

is to be our policy, but there are still greater objections to refraining from saying anything at all.
The Foreign Secretary recently laid down two basic principles on which our policy must stand: First, that war must not be repeated; second, that Germany must not be economically destroyed. These seemed to me to be admirable bases for approaching this problem, but sooner or later we shall have to go further, either by gradual stages before the war is over, or in the midst of the turmoil, confusion and bitterness which will spring up at the moment the war is over. I suggest that it is extremely important that we should go further before the war is over by unfolding, by gradual stages, our policy, not only to ourselves, but to Germany and the world. The basis of our post-war policy, as has already been laid down by the Government, must be concerned not only with the avoidance of the two catastrophies which have befallen mankind during the last 25 years, but must also be concerned with the establishment of social security, and it is clear that if we are to formulate our peace terms in any effective way, they must be bound up with the drawing-up of the terms of our social security programme. That makes the position more complicated than it was before. There is a body of people, with the Minister without Portfolio at their head, who are now engaged in plans for reconstruction. To most back benchers this body is now rather vague and formless; it exists somewhere beyond the sandbag sentries and policemen in Whitehall and rather reminds one of Mr. Belloc's description of the armies of Napoleon, after Moscow, "Somewhere remote from men they bivouac in silence round the most splendid of human swords."
The silence which surrounds this body is one of the great difficulties in connection with this problem of formulating our peace aims, because the two things are bound closely with each other. We have to bear in mind that if we want social security in this country, we must also have social security in the world outside. After the war we shall have to bear a great responsibility with the United States and the Soviet Republics, and in my opinion we cannot begin too soon to enter into negotiations with both these great countries to lay down the basis of the new order after the war. There will have to be the disarmament of Germany,


and the countries allied with her, and it is no use diverting our attention from the fact that if we are to disarm Germany, we must look forward to the time when we must either impose rigid limitation of armaments on all countries or face the problem of rearmament springing up again all over the world. There must be guarantees by the victors for the frontiers of the nations which come into being. We cannot create a new Poland, a new Czechoslovakia, a new Hungary or a new Austria without taking upon ourselves the responsibility of seeing that they can exist in the post-war world. These things will mean a heavy and permanent responsibility, both economically and financially.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said that these economic questions will be the main portion of our post-war problem and that they were something which could be largely separated from the political instrument. I doubt, however, whether that is well-founded. Sooner or later, if Germany is to be in a position of economic prosperity, she must come to the conference table with other people and take part as an equal partner in the discussions that will arise. Once you get economic equality, you are more than half-way to political equality. We must have confidence that when peace comes we shall be able to build a new order commensurate with the sacrifices which have been made. I suggest with all earnestness that it is extremely important that we should begin the process of building and planning now, and that this should be part of our weapons to bring down the Nazi Government and force the German people into a new collaboration in the world, so that the ideals which have so long dominated Germany may be utterly destroyed. If we do that, this war will not have been in vain. If we fail, the last notes of the trumpet will die away and darkness will fall upon us.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The Lord Privy Seal, in giving us his review of events, bade us consider the present situation in the light of the past, and warned us, quite rightly and wisely, to be neither over-pessimistic nor over-optimistic. It seems to me that our demeanour should be that enjoined upon the newly-joined midshipman when he goes to sea, that he should be cheerful but

subdued. But if one reviews some of our mistakes in the not too recent past, one is almost led to wonder whether we are entitled to the present good fortune which undoubtedly is ours. Certainly, we are very much better situated than we were at this time last year.
In considering the war situation, I think it should be borne in mind, both by the Government and those outside this House, that constructive criticism of the Government or of events should not be regarded either by the Government or by constituents to imply either opposition to the Prime Minister and the Government or any spirit of defeatism. As I see it, it is the plain and unalterable duty of every Member of Parliament to offer criticism and comment when he is not satisfied either with action that has been taken or with the results that have flowed from that action. Many people seem to forget that Parliament is just as important a part of the war machine of the British Empire as are any of the Services. The Prime Minister himself has stated that he welcomes criticism, and in my view, both the Prime Minister and the Government might well be fortified by it. On 27th February, the Prime Minister said:
It is the policy of this present Government to raise and sustain the personal status of Members of Parliament in every possible manner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1941; col. 734, Vol. 369.]
The Prime Minister having said that, I was a little surprised by an allusion he made in a recent Debate that criticism came from those who had not done a day's work in their lives. In looking at my fellow Members, I think that most of us can say that in our lives we have done a pretty good day's work in one direction or another. The Prime Minister's best friends may well be those who venture to offer to him criticisms and suggestions. There is in London at the present time a musical play in which one character portrayed is a somewhat dominating, overbearing director of a film studio, and in a song which he sings he says what he considers should be the attitude of everybody who is in his employment; it is that they should always say to him, "Yes, Mr. Kelly." I think it would be a great mistake for an opinion to grow up in the country, as I am afraid it has, that the Prime Minister wishes to be surrounded only by people who are prepared to say, "Yes, Mr. Churchill." I am sure the


Prime Minister's strength, and the wonderful position which he occupies in the eyes of the world and of his own countrymen, would be maintained and increased if people felt that when they offered reasonable criticism they were not looked upon as being enemies or obstructionists.
It is common knowledge, which both the Prime Minister and the Government must, of course, share, that the general public was very apprehensive concerning events in Libya and in Greece and that the Debate on Greece on 6th and 7th May did not by any means allay the feelings of the community or reassure it. The reverse which we sustained in Crete most profoundly disturbed public opinion, and the Debate which took place on the whole question of the campaign in Crete by no means allayed the misgivings felt in the country. The Prime Minister made a very great speech on that occasion, but he did not really answer the criticisms that were offered. Whether they were fully or adequately expressed in the Debate is another matter, but they certainly existed, and I think they still exist. For example, why were no steps taken in proper time so to construct, defend and maintain such adequate airfields in Crete as would have enabled us to exercise that aerial strength in fighters which would have defeated the German attack upon the Island?
In my opinion, the troubles which came upon us in Libya, Greece and Crete were due to the same basic cause, namely, the departure from a fundamental strategy based on sea and air power. In the past, whenever we have neglected the lessons of history and have departed from this fundamental strategy based upon sea and air power, we have inevitably and invariably met with disasters and reverses, and precisely the same effects will follow the same causes to-day. During the Debate on Crete, the naval aspect of the reverse which we suffered there was hardly touched upon. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) was the only Member who mentioned that aspect of the affair. That does not mean that there were not others who would have been anxious to say something about it had not the limited time at our disposal made it very difficult for hon. Members to be called in the Debate. Therefore, many

criticisms which might have been made remained unvoiced.
One lesson which I think we have learned during the last few months is that public opinion is growing impatient at the paucity of the news which it is given. The Debates on the Ministry of Information, statements in the Press, and views expressed at Question time by hon. Members all go to show that the public is not satisfied with the news which it is being given. It is inevitable that in war reverses must come, and it would be very foolish to over-estimate their importance, or, as the Prime Minister aptly said, to lose our sense of proportion. We may have other and worse reverses before the war is finally won. It may well be necessary, on occasion, to hold back from the public certain items of news lest the enemy profit from them; but I believe it to be dangerous to hide from the British people, during war or at any other time, what need not be hidden, or to try to minimise to them the effect of reverses, whether great or small.
Perhaps I have in the past trespassed unduly on the patience of the House in trying to have some discussion of the terms of the agreement for leasing bases in the British Empire to the United States of America. It does not seem to me that there were any reasons why the House and the people of this country should not have been told exactly what was contemplated and exactly what was the meaning of that agreement. I venture to remind the House, if reminder be necessary, that since the publication of the agreement there has not been in the Press of this country any comment or criticism of it. For the first time, in my opinion quite rightly, in the common defence of the democracy of the West and the democracy of the British Empire, we have agreed to place at the disposal of our great friend and Ally, the United States, certain parts of the British Empire. But it is significant that the Press has not made any comment. I suggest that the Press has not been allowed to make any comment, and that is a very dangerous thing. The freedom of this House and the freedom of the Press stand or fall together; if one goes, the other goes.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest


that the Government have exercised a censorship over the Press with regard to that matter?

Sir A. South by: I think that a wish can be expressed which is even more binding than any censorship.

Mr. Mander: There has been no censorship?

Sir A. Southby: I do not know. I am not in the Government, and I am not as closely associated with the Government as perhaps the hon. Member is. I do not know whether the Press are censored or not, but I venture to suggest that they were instructed not to comment upon it. I am one who most heartily agrees with the principle underlying the transfer of these bases. We had a Debate quite recently on the subject of the American loan, which I understand is broadly designed to pay for what we received from America prior to the passage of the Lease-Lend Act. One of the reasons why there was to be no discussion in this House—and I asked the Lord Privy Seal on more than one occasion for an opportunity to discuss the leasing of the bases—was because the passage of the Lease-Lend Bill was imminent. If this recent loan upon which we had a discussion in this House was in order to pay for what we had prior to the Lease-Lent Act, and we now have that most excellent and helpful Lease-Lend Act, what was the consideration paid for the transfer of British territory to the United States for the common defence of both our countries?
What are we getting in return for the leasing of these bases? I have heard it suggested in private conversation, both inside and outside this House, that these bases have really been turned over in part settlement for the debts incurred by this country for the last war. If that be true, I suggest the people of this country should be told. There can be no reason why they should not be told. Then it has been suggested that they may have been leased in part payment for the 50 destroyers. I suggest that both our American friends and ourselves would not be prepared to say that the 50 destroyers are an adequate return for a 99 year lease of bases so vital to us as Bermuda and so forth. I quote that as a case in point. The country has

never been told what is the principle underlying the transaction of the leasing of the bases.

Mr. Stokes: Why not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He is on the Front Bench?

Sir A. Southby: I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer.

Commander King-Hall: Is it not possible there may be no commercial considerations, but that it is purely a matter of mutual interest and welfare?

Sir A. Southby: That may be so, but why not tell us? After all, we are making a pretty good contribution to the common good.

Commander King-Hall: And so is the United States.

Sir A. Southby: And so is the United States. The Syrian campaign has been brought to a successful conclusion. But I cannot help thinking that we should have been in an infinitely better position to carry it out had it been embarked upon before our reverses in Greece and Crete. In spite of what has been said by Government spokesmen, there is no doubt that the minds of many people are not too happy in regard to our conduct of affairs in Egypt and in the Near East. After General Wavell's magnificent series of victories in North Africa we held all the trump cards. The effect of those victories on French North African opinion and on opinion in Spain was tremendous. If hon. Members cast their minds back, they will agree that the electric effect which went round the world when the news of these successes came through was tremendous, and might have turned the scale of public opinion both in Spain and in French North Africa in our favour. Egypt and the Suez Canal were safe, and the Moslem world was deeply impressed by our victories. What is the position to-day? Almost all our gains in Libya have been thrown away. It is true we have had a successful campaign in Abyssinia, and that we have put the Emperor back on his throne, and it is also true that we have had a successful campaign in Syria, bnt Egypt and the Suez Canal are again in danger. We are on the defensive in Libya, and the fact that the offensive by the German forces


which were transferred to North Africa has not been pressed recently is due to our Russian Ally and their occupation of German attention on the Russian front.
The possibility of losing Egypt and the Suez Canal is something which has to be borne in mind. It cannot be viewed with equanimity. And yet there was an article which appeared in the "Times" some time ago which almost went so far as to say that if we did lose Egypt and the Suez Canal, it would not matter too much because, so long as we were not beaten in the Western approaches, we were all right. To a certain extent that is true, because the only place where Hitler can win the war is in the Western approaches to Great Britain. But the effect in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India and China if we failed to hold the Canal would be incalculable, and, therefore, at all costs we must hold Suez and the road to the East. It must be obvious what are the effects of our reverses in the Eastern Mediterranean in regard to the Western Mediterranean, and what happens in the Western Mediterranean affects the whole conduct of our campaign in the Western approaches. General Wavell is one of the finest generals this country has ever produced. He ranks in military genius with men like Marlborough and Wellington. His campaign in North Africa was a triumph of the military art. I cannot help believing, in regard to our Greek commitments, that his considered opinion was in fact overruled by the Government. In his speech in the House of Commons on 9th April the Prime Minister said:
When we look back upon the forlorn position in which we were left in the Middle East by the French collapse, when we remember that not only were our Forces in the Nile Valley outnumbered by four or five to one by the Italian armies, that we could not contemplate without anxiety the defence of Nairobi, Khartum, Cairo, Alexandria, Jerusalem and the Suez Canal, and that this situation has been marvellously transformed…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1941; col. 1589, Vol. 370.]
That was perfectly true. We realised then that there was deep cause for satisfaction; but, to-day, while our situation in the Near East is by no means forlorn, it has certainly been transformed to one of considerable anxiety. If we are to avoid future errors, we should, as the Lord Privy Seal suggested in his speech, look at what has happened in the past and what mistakes have been made. Obviously we should have gone on to Tripoli and thereby

secured ourselves in Northern Africa. Had we done so, we should have prevented the German action in Libya which has driven us back on the defensive. It would have deeply impressed public opinion in our favour, and by holding and developing vital airfields at Benghazi we should have had it in our power to hammer Italy and the Luftwaffe bases in Sicily. We should also have had it in our power to give tremendous support to our Forces established in Crete. By losing the Benghazi aerodromes we have lost an opportunity of dominating the Sicilian Channel and thereby making the task of Admiral Cunningham infinitely easier than it has been. Had we bombed Italy thoroughly when our Armies were winning such splendid victories in North Africa, we might have knocked out a groggy and wobbling opponent.
Why, for instance, have we not attempted to bomb the great hydro-electric installations in the Val d'Aosta, from which most of the Italian railways derive their power? These railways have been busily employed in transporting thousands of German soldiers and hundreds of thousands of tons of German material. When Rumania fell we did not attempt to bomb the Germans there, and we made no real effort to bomb and destroy the oil wells. Bulgaria wobbled and ultimately fell. We threatened King Boris with all sorts of pains and penalties, but what attempt did we make to carry out our threats? In his speech of 9th April the Prime Minister said:
For some months past we have witnessed and watched with growing concern the German absorption of Hungary, the occupation of Rumania, and the seduction and occupation of Bulgaria. Step by step we have seen this movement of the German military power to the South and South-East of Europe. A remorseless accumulation of German armoured and motorised divisions and of aircraft has been in progress in all these three countries for months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1941; col. 1589, Vol. 370.]
If that was so, why did we not do something about it? We had the power. Now the situation is indeed transformed. Let us pay tribute where tribute is due. It has been transformed by the fact that Russia is now fighting as our Ally. Some people may not like it—it is not popular everywhere—but let us face that fact and let us pay a tribute to the courage, determination and skill of the Russian Forces now fighting with us in the common


cause of liberty. Let us face this fact too, that their aid came to us at a vitally necessary time. I pay my tribute to the work of the Foreign Secretary. Whatever mistakes he has made in the past, he has a great triumph to his credit in the accommodation which he has been able to effect between Poland and Russia. It is a diplomatic triumph of the first magnitude, for which he should be praised by everybody who studies international affairs. It may well have an enormous influence upon Europe in the future and upon the conduct of the war.
Because of our failure to act when we had the opportunity in the Mediterranean, Germany occupied the vitally important islands of Lemnos and Samothrace, at the entrance to the Dardanelles. We could easily have occupied and fortified them, but we did not do it. Why not? What political considerations were allowed to influence us so that we did not take a step which was quite obvious if we wanted to secure the Dardanelles? We threw away a chance of the utmost importance in our war effort. We always seem to be forestalled by Germany. We hear of German infiltration here and German infiltration there. When are we going to start infiltration ourselves? Could we not, by agreement with Spain or otherwise, have established ourselves in the vital position of Ceuta, thus ensuring control of the Western end of the Mediterranean, which is of vital importance to us? We were almost forestalled in Iraq. I have heard it said that the initiative as regards the operations in Iraq came not from the Government here but from the Government in India, who saw at once the danger with which we were confronted and acted immediately, with the most happy results. But for that prompt action we might have been in a very difficult position. That saved us and restored our prestige among the Arab races and made it possible for us to win the campaign in Syria. What about Iran? If Iraq is necessary for us, surely so is Iran. Do not let us wait until it is too late. When we have the opportunity, let us make some effort in that direction.
An hon. Member has stressed the vital importance to us of Thailand and how necessary it is that we should not allow Japan to be established there. He said, in connection with Thailand, what everyone

realises is true with regard to all the other places in which we have allowed Germany to get in first, namely, that it is much more difficult to get people out when they are in than to prevent them getting in in the first instance. The German successes in the Near East and in Northern Africa vitally affected the position of the Fleet in the Mediterranean. In order to try and hold Crete without proper air support, which should have been forthcoming and which, had it been forthcoming, would have enabled us decisively to defeat the German Luftwaffe, we lost ships, sunk and damaged, which we could ill afford to lose. Our hope of winning the war is based ultimately upon sea power. We cannot afford to throw ships away in ill-thought-out campaigns anywhere in the world. Their employment in the confined waters around Greece and Crete, brilliant and heroic as were their actions, was a risk which it should not have been necessary to undertake. I agree with the Prime Minister that all other theatres of war are less important than the theatre of war in the Western approaches to Great Britain. I have always said that in the end the Battle of the Atlantic will decide the fate of Germany, but interference anywhere in the world with our sea communications, the capture by Germany of fresh bases from which she can operate by sea and air against our communications, must inevitably affect the operations going on in the Western approaches. Our lines of communication in the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans are part of one enormous defensive system, vital to us and ultimately to the success of the campaign in the Western approaches themselves.
A previous speaker referred to our successes against U-boats. It is not possible to give much detail of what is going on or how many U-boats have been sunk but I believe the success which has been attained by the heroic men who spend their time in the Atlantic fighting U-boats is very great indeed. The Navy is doing splendidly, and is going ultimately to win the Battle of the Atlantic. May I pay a tribute to the men who undertake the duty of commodores of convoy? I do not suppose many people realise that many of the officers in charge of these slow-moving convoys of merchant vessels are officers on the retired list, often of admiral's rank,


senior officers long since retired who have gone back to take on the job of commodore of convoys, who, day in, day out, in fair weather and foul, have been going backwards and forwards across the Atlantic on a most difficult and arduous job.
In talking of the work of the Fleet, I am bound to make this comment. I have always thought we made a cardinal mistake when we bombarded the French Fleet at Oran. Admiral Darlan, whatever we may think of him now, was the creator of the modern French navy. He is the idol of French naval officers and men. They look upon him as the man who after the last war rescued their navy from decay and made it into a new and modern machine. I have always understood that he passed his word that the French ships would never be handed over to Germany. If that is so, I should have been prepared, as a naval officer, to accept it. But we embarked upon that adventure of the bombardment at Oran, and it has turned most of the French navy against us. They bitterly resent the attack on their ships at a time when there was no evidence to show that those ships were going to be handed over. I believe that the decision was taken in the teeth of advice from responsible naval officers here: and in the Mediterranean. If that is so, the Government committed a blunder from which we shall suffer very grievously before the war is over. As for the collapse of France, rotten for years past, in whose strength and integrity we put a most foolish trust before the war began, that disruption and fall have made our task much more difficult. Eire's refusal to participate in the war, which is to preserve her freedom as well as ours, makes the work of our antisubmarine patrols much more difficult. They have denied us bases which are of the most vital importance to us.
There is evidence in conversations that one hears and in hints in the Press that some military excursion into Europe is about due. I beg the House to consider most carefully what we do. Only by the combined efforts of the Navy and the Air Force did we get our Army back from Dunkirk, Greece and Crete. The pity is that before the war started we reversed a decision which had been come to that never again would we send an Expeditionary Force to the Continent in the same way as we did in 1914; If we could not

give adequate air and sea support to our Army in Greece, whatever might have been the sentimental or political considerations involved, it should never have been sent there. I pay my tribute to the heroism and magnificent courage of the Greek people, but if we could not ensure adequate support to the Army that we sent there from the sea and air, it was a tragic blunder to send it. We sustained a loss of material which was prodigious, and which will now be felt at a time when the need for organising and expanding our armoured military forces is greatest. The occupation of Crete fitted in with the fundamental strategy based on sea plus air power, and if we had properly established ourselves there, we should never have lost the island. The Army and Navy brilliantly fulfilled their roles in Crete. Our defeat was due to unpardonable mistakes in connection with the air.
We are now considering the war situation. We are perhaps at the most vital moment in the war—I believe the turning point. I believe that now is the time when the tide is beginning to flow in our favour, and for that reason it is important, in considering the future and what it may hold for us, that we should profit by the lessons of the past. To use the British Army on the Continent as we did in the last war, and as we have tried to do in this war, is to throw away to a large extent all the advantages which superior sea power gives us. Sir Edward Grey, a great figure and a great statesman, is reported to have said once that the Army was a shot to be fired by the Navy at the enemy's weakest point. That is literally true. We cannot be a military power on the Continental scale as well as a dominant sea power. Practically all our resources should go to maintaining air and sea power with the Army as a subsidiary weapon. It should be used, as it has been used in the past, for amphibious operations. If we try to use it in pursuit of Continental strategy, and at the same time as part of amphibious strategy, we shall fall between two stools. The more Germany stretches out over Europe, the more vulnerable she becomes. Just consider the vulnerability of German-occupied countries from Norway right down to Biarritz on the Franco-Spanish frontier and realise what an enormous field of operations is open to us. Perhaps the best example in history of the proper use of the British Army on amphibious warfare


was the Peninsula campaign under Wellington. The Army was behind the lines of Torres Vedras and its base was secured by sea power in Lisbon. It delivered such a blow at Napoleon's flank that it ultimately brought him down.
History may well repeat itself. If we use the Army as a shot to be fired by the Navy and send that shot in the right place, we shall bring Hitler down. Do let us, however, guard against any idea of squandering our dearly-bought reserves as they were squandered in France and Greece. The Army should be adequately equipped so that when it delivers its blow it should be a knock-out, and behind that blow there should be sufficient reserves. The modern panzer divisions require immense reserves of expensive materiel. The history of this war has taught us that to be any use mechanised warfare must deliver a blow with the utmost intensity and that the blow must not be delivered until the Army is completely ready. No doubt we shall take a chance as we should and deliver the knock-out blow somewhere on that exposed flank, but let those who perhaps are pressing for immediate and spectacular action profit by the lessons of Greece and France. Do not let us deliver that blow on Germany's exposed flank until we have sufficient force behind the blow to make it decisive. If we base our strategy on sea plus air power and wait until we have decisive power in the Army then history will repeat itself and the blow will be the end of Hitler.

Mr. Mander: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), in his interesting and wide survey of world affairs, dealt in particular with the question of Oran. I do not agree with his view that we were wrong. When public opinion in America and other places saw that, it had a tremendous effect. They said, "If you can do that against people who were your Allies, you mean business, and there is no question of your breaking down." It was one of the events in the war which had the biggest effect on making people in other parts of the world realise that we were going to resist at all costs. My hon. and gallant Friend made the definite charge that there had been a censorship by the Government of criticisms in the

Press in regard to the leasing of American bases. I hope that it will be made clear that there is no censorship of the Press in this or any other matter and that the Press are free to express what views they wish having regard to the public interest.

Sir A. Southby: I did not say there had been a censorship. I said it was significant that no comment shad been made in the Press, and I suggested that they were not made because the Government did not wish them to be made.

Mr. Mander: My hon. and gallant Friend said that a definite instruction had been given out by the Government. He also referred to certain criticisms of the Prime Minister, that he was over sensitive to criticism, even if friendly. We all realise that, but it must be appreciated that the Prime Minister stands in an unchallengeable position among the people of this country and in the House of Commons. We are prepared to overlook certain things which in times of controversy would be commented upon, because we realise that his leadership is magnificent and necessary to us. That does not necessarily mean that we approve of every act of his or every Minister whom he associates with himself.
Reference has been made to the splendid efforts of the Russians to withstand the German onslaught in the East, and one cannot help feeling that the entry of Russia into the war will make it a shorter war and make the peace a better peace. There is a mutual exchange of help. No doubt we are giving the Russians physical support, and I should think there was an opportunity for us to receive from them wise advice in the use of propaganda, because they do seem to be able to put over to the enemy the kind of propaganda which should have been, and should now be, I think, directed from this country, so that we attack not only the bodies but the minds of our enemies. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), who made a most interesting speech, that we must direct much more attention in future to attacking the enemy in that sphere.
The signing of the Russo-Polish Pact was an event of first-class importance and reflects the greatest credit on everybody concerned. Particularly, would I commend


the attitude of the Polish Government and General Sikorski, the Prime Minister of Poland. It was, on his part, an act of the highest statemanship and great courage, for which we should always be very grateful. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also has earned the gratitude of the nation for the very happy part he has played in this matter. It is sometimes said by those who, I think, do not altogether appreciate what has happened, that the Polish Government is just the same as the Government in that country before the war—that it is reactionary and of the Right. I venture to think that is quite untrue. It is now, broadly representative and progressive in outlook.
Let me give one example to prove what I am saying. Some years ago, when I was in Poland I was in a little mountain resort called Zakopane. I had an introduction to a certain Cracow professor who was one of the leaders of the Peasant Party, which, though representing 70 per cent. of the nation, was then entirely unrepresented in the Government. He had recently been in prison for political reasons—because the national peasants had held some big meetings. Finding that he was in that resort I endeavoured to get into touch with him. I had the greatest difficulty in doing so. I had to go secretly, by roundabout ways, to his hotel, looking all the time to see that nobody was about. Finally, I had an interesting discussion with him in his bedroom, with the windows carefully closed. That professor, Professor Kot, is now one of the leading Ministers of the present Polish Government in London. It shows the remarkable change in the political orientation of the Polish Government, a point which ought to be made clear.
While I congratulate the Foreign Secretary upon the part he has played in connection with the Russo-Polish Pact, I hope that he will go further and direct his attention to the interesting negotiations which have been going on, for some time, between the Polish and Czecho-Slovakian Governments. They hold out great hopes for the future, not only as between those two countries but as regards others who may associate themselves with the contemplated federation., or confederation. I think the Foreign Secretary could usefully intervene and stimulate those negotiations which, at the moment, are not getting on quite as rapidly as one could wish.
With regard to Spain, the Foreign Secretary made it clear the other day that we were not prepared to go on supplying the food and other things which we have contracted to send if the' views enunciated in General Franco's recent speech were found to be his considered policy. May we be told whether His Majesty's Government have any further information on that subject? I should like to hear that our Government intend to suspend deliveries of food and other things until we have received a satisfactory reply from the Spanish Government. It is intolerable that we should be spoken to in the offensive language that was used on that occasion and yet go on as though nothing very serious had happened.
The hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn) made an admirable speech in regard to Japan, and I should like to associate myself with what he said. We must take firm and definite action at the earliest possible moment. Japan goes very slowly, step by step; she gets into a place and then looks round and says, "We really mean nothing, you need not worry." Sometimes nothing is done, and then she goes on. We get the same thing happening over and over again. Certain steps have been taken against Japan, but not all of them are too impressive. We have given 12 months' notice to cancel our commercial treaties. That will not have a very terrorising effect. Then the publicity regarding economic sanctions has not, I think, been too happy. It was thought at first that by the freezing of assets and the abrogation of agreements to supply oil and other things very serious action had been taken, and according to the reports in the "Times" there was consternation in Japan when they first heard what was proposed; but it was soon appreciated that what was intended was a purely precautionary measure. I should be only too delighted if that view were denied and if it were made clear that that is not the case, but from reports in the Press it would appear that there is to be a system of licences and that oil and other things will continue to be exported to Japan. I do not say that they will be exported from this country, but there is to be a continuation of oil supplies from the United States and from the Dutch East Indies. If that is so, then Japan may well feel that while we bluster and talk a great deal about the action which


the Allies propose to take she can, in effect, go on with her programme. I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to make it clear that the Allies, and not only this country, are determined in practice to cut off the vital products for war purposes which Japan is now receiving from those associated with us in this struggle.
I hope that the time is not far distant when we can openly recognise China as one of our Allies in this war, taking her place in all respects with the other Allies. I trust that it is not a very shocking thing to say, but I hope we may have some opportunity then of listening to the Chinese National Anthem. The Government have put themselves in a ridiculous position over national anthems. Under their present policy it will never be possible at any stage throughout the war to play any Allied national anthem, because if we play one, obviously we shall have to pay the "International." That cannot be ruled out. I hope that very foolish decision will be abandoned, and that we shall on due occasions play the national anthems of all our Allies, whether or not they are in the terms or are the tunes that we like, bearing in mind that the other country's idea of what a national anthem should be is not necessarily ours.
I hope that the Chinese Government will be invited in due course to the Allied Conference, one of the sessions of which is shortly to take place. One hopes also that representatives of the United States, perhaps as observers, might take their places at such a gathering. The Government have brought about, in the assembly of this Allied conference, an event of enormous importance. It is the answer to Hitler's new order. There we have a gathering of persons who, as the Foreign Secretary has said, are associated not only for war but for the purposes of peace on a permanent basis. I do not think we have, so far, made nearly enough of it. The publicity at the first meeting was very badly managed, and I urge the Foreign Secretary that, at the meeting which is shortly to take place and at any subsequent meetings, he should have the Press present when any formal speeches are to be made, so as to let the whole world know that we are now building up a structure which we hope will be of permanent value to the world.
Reference was made by the Lord Privy Seal to Germany now being engaged upon a war upon two fronts. In a sense I suppose it is true, but it is not a war on two fronts in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the term. It would be very interesting to know whether it will be a military war on two fronts, a war on land. Public opinion is now wondering whether there are to be raids on the coast, either in strength or as "tip-and-run" raids. Interested opinion is inclined to think that such a thing would keep the Germans guessing, because they would not know whether the raid was a forerunner of invasion on a big scale. It might have the effect of keeping German forces over there or bringing forces back from the East. It would be very interesting to see whether something can be done on these lines to make a real war on two fronts.
When we get to the time when the enemy go back into Germany from all the occupied territories, the question will arise, what sort of government will be put into power and permitted to operate in Germany at the time of the Armistice? Obviously it cannot be a Nazi government, because we will have nothing whatever to do with them. It is not desirable to deal with a military government. There may be no other group of persons available. I should think there is a good deal to be said for the idea now being expressed in some quarters, that there should be set up, at the time of the Armistice, an International Commission to administer the country for the time being, on behalf of the Allies, until the time arrives when we can find Germans of representative character willing to shoulder the responsibility of setting up a representative government of their own country. Then the work of the reconstruction commission would be done.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) referred to various speeches and official utterances made from time to time by members of the Government, particularly Lord Halifax and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to our war and peace aims. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to find a certain conflict in those statements, but there appears to me to be a unity running through them. They seem to go a long way towards


setting forth, in general terms, the kind of world we want to see after the war. It is very satisfactory from this point of view, that it destroys absolutely the illusion of many persons who believe that we can go back to a nationalist and isolationist position and play no part in world affairs. People have been saying that, even during the course of this war, but the policy laid down in speeches on behalf of the Government makes it clear that we look forward, as we should, to a world order of some kind in which we should play our part to the full, for purposes of mutual Defence, the preservation of peace and the promotion of the prosperity of all peoples. Let us make it clear that that is our policy; not just a policy for the Allies, but for the people of the whole world, without any exception whatever. If we can do that effectively and bring it home to the enemy people, we shall take a long step toward bringing this war to a victorious conclusion.

Captain York: I do not often have the privilege of addressing this House, and on the present occasion I propose to make my contribution very brief. Two points have been impressed upon my mind, and I have heard them referred to by several speakers. The first relates to war on two fronts. The other point is, What is to happen to Germany when we have beaten her? Are we allowing ourselves to think, after we have gone to a lot of trouble and sacrifice, that the German nation is to get away unpunished for what it has done to the world? Let there be no mistake; there are now in this country many people who would be willing to forget all the damage that has been done. I believe that now, and at every possible juncture in the future, we must say that we shall not allow such a thing to happen. Of course, we do not wish to starve the German nation, and His Majesty's Government have already said that this shall not happen, but let us make it plain, and let us remind ourselves, that if the German nation happened, by some mischance, to win the war, their plans are cut and dried as to what they would do with us. It is no Christian attitude that they would adopt. On our side, we shall adopt a fair, although Christian, attitude.
On the question of the war on two fronts, I have heard frequent references by the Government and other responsible

people leading one to suppose that, in the fairly near future, there will be a war upon two fronts. One of the great difficulties of our position is that we have to cross the sea in order to produce those two fronts. Our Air Force and our Navy are supreme, and in those spheres outside Europe in which we have asked the Army to operate, even though they have been fighting in every instance against enormous odds in materials and men, they have always managed to win. I do not wish to criticise any function of the Army, and I am debarred from doing so even if I wished to do so, but I do draw attention to the fact that wherever the Army is asked to operate, the odds have been very heavily against us. I believe—and it has already been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby)—that the Government and the country are beginning to think of our Army in terms of a Continental army. That, in my opinion, is a mistake which must be avoided at all costs. We have not the substance of such an army, and if we try to persuade ourselves that we have, we shall be led into the same kind of trouble as we have experienced so many times during this war and during the last war as well. We can subdue Italians and other Axis-inspired peoples, even though we have only a small proportion of the forces which these people send against us, but we cannot do the same thing, nor mete out the same punishment, to the German army unless there is a great deal more reasonable comparison in strength and numbers. The Army, well equipped and with ample reserves behind them, can and will beat the German army, even though the odds are against us, but we can never hope to rival their power in strength and numbers. We did not compare in the last war, and the enormous demands of the Royal Air Force, of the Navy and of the home command for anti-aircraft defence ensure that we shall not be able to do it in this war.
Some people are thinking in terms of this Continental army, and although I do not wish to argue about details or numbers of divisions, I can and do argue that the Service Departments are taking more and more men from essential services in the country, which are being drained in order to make up a large Army which is


really a mistake. In particular the food producers of this country are being drained away, weekly and monthly, until a time will come when there will only be men of over 45 still on the land. The House yesterday had a long discussion about the same kind of thing happening in the mines. The War Department is chiefly responsible in regard to these two industries, mining and agriculture, and in each case they are rapidly denuding the resources of these two industries. I want to put forward a plea to the Government that until the home front is secure they should leave these industries alone, and in fact all home industries. The divisions which we are creating for the Army should be fully mechanised, fully armoured if necessary, and certainly fully equipped and with not less than 200 per cent. reserves behind them. This would then be the striking force of an Army which will be created not entirely by ourselves but also by our Allies. Let them put the large numbers into the field to consolidate the positions we have gained, and let our Army be the spearhead of the advance when that does come.
I believe that even if our Russian Allies foil the enemy, as they appear to be doing at the moment, it will he many months before the defeat and break-up of the German nation actually takes place. We shall need all the help we can get from all freedom-loving nations in the world, and when we have this enormous increase in man-power under arms, we shall be able to attempt an assault, be it Continental or otherwise. With our own limited manpower we cannot do so, and, as has already been said, shall be led to another Dunkirk. Certain victory is ours in God's own time, and if we work for it, but if we denude our land of skilled men now, when the time comes we shall be in no fit state to venture upon the great assault into the pagan heart of Europe.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I feel sure that the Government will not have been disappointed with to-day's Debate; I have listened to most of it, and it has been exceedingly interesting. I was very intrigued by a suggestion made by one hon. Gentleman who spoke about the Chinese National Anthem. If he will find me the words and music of the anthem, I will try to sing it to him, or we can have a duet on it; it is the first time I have

heard that there was a Chinese National Anthem.
The House of Commons knows that I take a different view from that of the vast majority on the issue of peace and war. But the House is always magnanimous to people who hold a minority view, and I feel proud that it does so, because it would not in fact be a Parliament at all if minority views were not stated here. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is not in his place, because when I spoke on the last occasion on the lines on which I propose to speak to-day he thought that I should not utter those views because the majority of the people are against them. But he and I, 30 or 35 years ago, were in a hopeless minority within the Labour movement itself. It may interest hon. Members to know that I became a trade union official 36 years ago, and 90 per cent. of the people I tried to convert were against me—they objected to joining a trade union. But I saw my own union grow from 7,000 to 200,000, and I am therefore encouraged. I am never discouraged because I am in a minority, but I shall be in the majority soon after this war ends, holding my views as they stand now, because peace must come some day anyhow.
I would like now to turn to what the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) said in his very interesting speech. I agree with most of it. He wants more political warfare; so do I. I would like to see a world in which warfare could be conducted politically without bombs and bayonets. It is a long way to project the human mind, but the little I have tried to do in the world has been directed to bringing about a state of society in which men will pit their sense and intellect against one another instead of spending their substance on battleships, bayonets and bombs to blow one another to bits. I therefore think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made an excellent contribution to the Debate, the best, if I may say so, to which I have listened to-day.

Commander King-Hall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to say that his theory will be very nice when we have got to the disembodied stage. Unfortunately, our minds are still very closely attached to our bodies, and it is therefore necessary to attack the body in order to bring pressure to bear on the mind.

Mr. Davies: But it will be intolerable if the human race is to take turns at war every 20 years or thereabouts. I am hoping that the day will come, either in the time of my children or grandchildren, when there will be: no physical warfare, and I therefore repeat that I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a very excellent contribution to the Debate.
In this Debate there has been some criticism of the Prime Minister and of the coalition Government. I would venture to say, although it might appear contradictory, that I know of no man in this country who could take the place of the present Prime Minister if the country wants a fight to a finish. He has courage, determination and eloquence; he possesses all the qualities necessary if we are to fight this war to the last man, as it were, even to the devastation of the Continent of Europe.
We have, of course, four very wonderful friends in this war—Roosevelt, Stalin, the Straits of Dover and the eloquence of the Prime Minister. I am not so sure which is the greatest of the four. Let me come, however, to the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I want to congratulate him on one note he struck, which is the pivot on which I want to base my remarks. He said, in very much the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal when he was in opposition, that the British Government ought to make a declaration of aims as a rallying cry to rouse the decent peoples of Europe. What is the position? Is there a possibility at all of dividing the tyrannised from their tyrants, not only in Germany but Italy too, and in some other Continental countries as well? Not all the tyrants are in Germany by any means; they are to be found in other parts of Europe as well.
The gospel I have been trying to preach in this war is something like this: There are spiritual and moral forces in every country in the world that cannot find expression because they are smothered by the fear and hatred of nations for one another. If I can assist in a small measure in resurrecting those spiritual and moral forces in Europe, I shall be a very satisfied man indeed. But when the Prime Minister declares that there are "70,000,000 Huns, millions curable and millions

killable," that is really the sort of statement that will get us nowhere. If we want to divide the decent people of Europe from their masters as I want to do, we must challenge that philosophy. It is entirely contrary to nature itself to say that all men and women in a given nation are malignant, or evil. As a matter of fact, that is where we fell foul of Hitler himself, who declared that all the Jews are rascals and rogues. It is not true. Evil and good prevail in all countries and among all races alike, if I understand the teachings of Christianity. Further than that, evil and good not only exist in every country, but they are always fighting for mastery in each individual in each country alike. I would suggest therefore that when His Majesty's Government make an appeal to the people of Germany they should bear that point in mind.
Let me say one word about the Foreign Secretary. I welcome one statement he made the other day, when he said that it is not the intention of the Allies to make Germany bankrupt, because in doing so her neighbours would be dragged down to the same level as well. That, I think, is the sort of gospel that should be preached to the peoples of Europe and the working classes of Germany. I know some of them hate Nazism as much as I do. I want the House of Commons to realise that you can detest Nazism and criticise the British Government at the same time. Of course that is possible. There is no man or woman in this House who detests the totalitarian conception of government more than I do. There would be no place for a person with my views in any totalitarian State. I detest the assumption that 10 or 20 men should arrogate to themselves the responsibility of thinking for millions of their fellow countrymen. I am a little apprehensive about the same tendency in our own country at times too, and I desire the right to criticise it, if I may.
There is another view about this war which ought to be put in this House. I remember in the last war, the eminent Lord Lansdowne propounding, in 1917, the idea of a negotiated peace. He suddenly drew upon himself the venom of the Government of the day, and he was scorned by the Press and denounced at every turn. I took a little part in that


particular campaign as a follower of Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden. I would venture to say that if Lord Lansdowne's proposal had been accepted then, millions of lives would have been saved. But what is more important to me than anything else is that I am sure that if the Treaty of Versailles had been a negotiated instead of an imposed instrument we should never have heard of Hitler, and would probably have been able to avoid the present conflict as well. Members may not agree with that. I take the view that Nazism in Germany is the outcome of the failure of France and Britain to support democracy when Stresseman and Bruening were in power. The Noble Lord shakes his head. I can have my view on that.

Earl Winterton: And I can also shake my head.

Mr. Davies: Certainly. I wish I could dispel some of this hatred that fills all nations when war comes. For instance, I noticed in the Press that the Fuhrer, the other day, called our Prime Minister an epileptic drunkard. He responded by saying that Hitler was a drunken guttersnipe—(Interruption).—I think the phrase was "a blood-thirsty guttersnipe." What sort of language is that for leading statesmen in Europe to use to each other? Let me come to the suggestion I wish to make. Is it possible for the British Government—and I welcome suggestions from other quarters of the House on the same lines—to tell the world what this war is about? Have we reached the stage that we are fighting merely for fighting's sake? In this connection I welcome some of the language employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, which takes us nearer to common sense and reason than some statements by other people representing our country. If we are to separate the decent people of Germany from the Nazi regime, it is well to employ language that will tell them that we do not intend to be vindictive against them. We must live together on this Continent anyhow. I have travelled a little on the Continent of Europe, like some other hon. Members, and that is mainly why I feel competent to say a few words about this war.
Is it possible for His Majesty's Government to project their mind into the future, and declare what sort of Europe they would like established? What new type of

individual do they expect to emerge in Germany in order to negotiate a peace with us? If we wipe out Hitler, Ribben-trop, Goebbels, and their associates do we then expect a Socialist or a Radical party to arise in Germany? Now that Russia is on our side in this war, it is difficult to believe that the peace aims of Russia in Europe will fit in with those of His Majesty's Government. I am glad that the Lord Privy Seal is here, because it is not so long since he stood at this Box, saying much more eloquently and clearly, officially on behalf of our Labour party, what I am trying, in a rough and ready way, to say now. If it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to arouse the Radicals, Socialists, Communists and working classes on the Continent of Europe against their masters, what sort of appeal are they going to make to that type of person? I am sure it is not beyond the capacity of His Majesty's Government to state their peace aims and make the right sort of appeal. I was told some time ago that you could not get at the working classes of Germany at all. My retort was, "What is the use then of the British Government spending money trying to get at them on the wireless unless some of them are listening?" There is every reason to believe that people all over Europe are listening to these messages.
I should, of course, be a hypocrite if I did not say what I think about war. I was elected to Parliament because I was opposed to the last war. "When it was all over I saw the reactions of the people of this country; they were furious with some of those who had led them into that conflict. The German working classes too turned on some of their leaders who took them into the same war. In view of that, I cannot sit in this House of Commons, listening to a Debate on the war, without saying these things. I am not able, with the slender education I possess, to state my views as well as I should have liked, but men have stood here in this House of Commons for centuries declaring, in better language than I can command, what 1 am saying now. War settles nothing; it leaves more problems at the end than it set out to solve. I hope that, when this war is over, the peoples of Europe, in particular, will sit down and think deeply over these matters so that our children and our children's children may not suffer the agonies which this war is bringing upon us at present.

Mr. Lawson: This is the first time I have taken part in a Debate on the war in general, but it would be quite wrong for a speech like that of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), made from the Labour benches, to go unanswered from these same benches. My hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech that the House of Commons is magnanimous to a minority view. That is true; but if everybody had held his view, if the citizens of this country had not risen with determination, calling for arms, there would have been no House of Commons left to be magnanimous to anybody. My hon. Friend says we ought not to hate the Germans. Nobody hates the Germans; but we have a duty to perform in this country, and that duty will be performed. We do not consider that our task will be ended until Hitler and all that he stands for is ended.
I am one of those who after the last war did not believe in punishments—I did not believe in indemnities and reparations. I was given special leave in 1918 to fight a seat; and, in the teeth of deep antagonism from my fellow-workers, I opposed indemnities and reparations. I have not changed my mind upon that matter; but this country, I think, was very magnanimous to its German opponents after that war. It used all the influence it had to get the occupying troops out of the Ruhr before the time was up. This country, too—and I am proud that it was the work of a Labour Government—brought the British troops out of the Rhine years before their departure was due. The whole policy of this country, particularly of the Labour party, was to let bygones be bygones. We persisted in that attitude to the very point of danger. None of us could believe that the last war and its devastation, with its millions of young men destroyed, would ever be repeated. We thought that the seal of a common suffering was the seal of peace. The people of this country, at least the labour forces, pursued international policy in that spirit, calling for disarmament, as I did, wishing to co-operate with the Germans and with other nations in order to settle the great problems that were facing the world. We pursued that policy to a point of danger, and to a point at which those who govern Germany deliberately took advantage.

The German people cannot dissociate themselves from the policy of their leaders any more than we could dissociate ourselves from the policy of our leaders, and I would be a traitor, not only as a citizen of this country, but particularly to the working classes—which over a long industrial era suffered so much until they built up their great trade unions—if I forgot the treatment which has been meted out to members of trade unions in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other foreign countries which have been overrun. Their funds have been confiscated, their leaders have been imprisoned and some of them have been killed. A million working-class Poles have been taken from their country as slaves and treated as mere bales of merchandise. If I forgot these things, I should think myself unworthy of the working-class movement of this country.
It is the will of the British people that Hitler and all his works should be destroyed. The British working classes will make an end of any political leader who compromises on this matter. Let there be no mistake about that. I am not unmindful of the fact that we have a great political heritage, and I hope that the great masses of the people of this country will write even better political chapters than have been written in the past. But this all depends upon whether or not Parliament is in existence and our political institutions continue. They will not continue if Hitler and the dictators generally are victorious in this war. So, as a loyal supporter of the British working-class movement, I should be ashamed if I remained silent this day after listening to the speech just made by my hon. Friend.
May I say a word about what will happen after the war? I have no hatred for the Germans. I do not think any British citizens have a hatred for them. Hatred is not in us, but in so far as my influence with my party goes, I will see to it that when this war is over—with its deliberate attempt to ride rough-shod over the world by force of arms and to exploit all the great achievements of mankind in the spirit of the gangster—we shall keep ourselves in a position to see that this kind of thing is not repeated. I have not spoken on this matter before. The German people can have their chance to make good when we come out victors—because victors we shall


be—but there will have to be proof before we leave them that they will not repeat this kind of thing so that -our children and our children's children suffer as masses of the people are suffering in the world to-day. When I was a young man I used to read the stories about Attila and Ghengis Khan which can be found in Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." After a hard day's work I used to have a bath and a meal, and on reading these stories I would say to myself, "Thank God, we have passed all that." Incidentally, if anyone likes to read certain chapters of those stories, he will find there the same kind of statements and conduct as have come from Hitler. I used to think that such conduct would never be repeated. I never thought that hundreds of millions of people would be slaves to the will of one man, that millions would be massacred or that women would be treated as pawns in a most sickening game. For my part I hope we will not punish and that there will be no spirit of hatred. But I also hope that we will keep our arms until we are sure that there will be no repetition of the sufferings of to-day.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has just made a speech which was as moving as it was remarkable. It was, if he will allow me to say so as one North-countryman to another, a forthright North-country utterance, and for my part I can only add that I agree with every single word he said. I believe that he was speaking with the voice of the British people, expressing their sentiments, and not only their sentiments but the sentiments of the Allied countries who are fighting beside us in this war. As I was listening to his speech I thought—although I do not suppose he intended it—that he had made an admirable contribution to the expression of our war aims. Certainly, no clearer definition could have been looked for.
I think the House will feel that this has been a useful discussion to-day. It opened, after the valuable description by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal of the more recent military events, with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) about which I would like to say a few words if I may. In his speech he used a phrase which seemed to me accurately to describe what has happened as the result of the German invasion of Russia. He said that there had been a shift in the balance of the war. That is absolutely true and I think that shift has had another consequence within Germany herself. Hitler, by this completely unprovoked action, which, no doubt, had to be unprovoked if it was to have the best chance of military success, has to some extent crossed and confused the faith of his own people. He brought them up in a belief that Communism was the enemy. He made a complete change of front two years ago, and made an arrangement with Soviet Russia. Now, once again, he has asked his people to follow him in yet another change, and inevitably it would seem—and one can feel it even from the terms of the communiqués—that that action has crossed and confused the German people's faith in their own war purposes.
I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government realise that this state of affairs creates opportunities for political war. The right hon. Gentleman and one or two hon. Members have been good enough to refer to a speech which I made a few days ago and to the distinction which I then sought to draw, in our post-war settlement, between the military treatment of Germany and the economic treatment of Germany. I think that is both a reasonable and a real distinction. Militarily, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that every precaution that can be devised to see that Germany does not for a sixth time plunge Europe into war has got to be taken. It may be that in Germany there will grow—I pray that there may eventually grow—a spirit different from this thing which has created Hitler and supports him. I pray that it will be so, but we cannot afford to take any risk sin that respect. On that, there can be no wavering. Economically the position is different. To put it at its lowest, it would be to our disadvantage and to Europe's disadvantage that Germany should be economically ruined after the war. I think that definition is an intelligible one and one on which what


the right hon. Gentleman called our political warfare can reasonably proceed.
When we speak of political warfare, as the right hon. Gentleman did, it is—and I can assure him that the Government realise this—essential that there should be one consistent trend which is followed from the general direction of our foreign policy, as expressed in the speeches of Members of the War Cabinet, right down through every channel, by whatever means we are using to reach the people of Germany and the peoples of occupied Europe. We have made certain changes recently in the machinery for the coordination and for the operation of our political warfare. I believe that those changes will bring further-improvements. Certainly, it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we are now entering a period of greater opportunities than we have ever had before for political warfare, and I can assure him that the Government realise that those opportunities are there.
I should like here to say a word about a comment that fell from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his speech, and which seemed, from one or two speeches that I heard subsequently, to have been misunderstood. My right hon. Friend spoke of the war on two fronts. That is true. It is true in the sense that there is already war in the air and on the sea on two fronts, and in actual fact, on more than two fronts, for the Mediterranean is a third front in which a very vigorous war at sea and in the air is, at this moment, taking place. It is true that the German plans have had to be laid on the assumption of a war on two fronts, which is what my right hon. Friend mentioned, and which in no way discloses to the enemy what may or may not be our own future plans or intentions.
There have been one or two speeches about the Far East, and in particular one in which my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn) displayed his intimate knowledge of Thailand and of the problems of the Far East. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I say a few words about the Far Eastern situation. Hon. Members will remember that about a week ago I announced certain freezing measures which had been instituted by the United States, the Netherlands, and the British Empire, against Japan as a result of the Japanese seizure of bases in French Indo-

China. Those freezing measures are not, as seemed to be thought by some hon. Members in the Debate, framed so as to permit transactions which are not expressly forbidden. On the contrary, the operation is the reverse. They automatically forbid all transactions except those which are expressly permitted. As the House will understand, I cannot now disclose details of the manner in which this policy is to be applied, but there has been, throughout, the closest collaboration and the frankest discussion between His Majesty's Government at home, in the Dominions, in India and Burma, and in the Colonies, and the Governments of the United States and the Netherlands; and the two latter Governments have furnished us with full particulars and with comprehensive information of their actions. The same collaboration is continuing regarding the operation of these measures as was in evidence in former days. The House will understand that it is bound to take a little time to exchange views and information which are necessary for the common understanding of such a far-reaching experiment as the freezing orders represent. But that work is now practically completed. There is one assurance I would like to give the House, because I think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was in this mistaken. These steps were not lightly taken. The freezing order was seriously intended and it will be seriously executed.
I come to the problem with which the hon. Member for West Newcastle dealt specifically, the position in Thailand. The hon. Member drew attention to the attitude of certain sections of the Japanese Press. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government have not failed to note that the Japanese newspapers have recently been using the same kind of language regarding Thailand as they employed before the Japanese demand for bases in Indo-China. The technique is just the same. It is for that reason that, a week ago, on 31st July, His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo drew the attention of the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs to this newspaper campaign, which alleges, amongst other things, that we are intriguing in Thailand, that British military preparations are threatening Japanese interests, and that in consequence Thailand should, in her own interests, come to


an early understanding with Japan, the Power which controls Indo-China. That is what their Press is saying. Our Ambassador pointed out that this kind of thing could only mean that someone in authority in Japan was endeavouring to manufacture a case for Japan's intervention in Thai affairs. He added that if a step of this kind were taken, coming on top of the recent action in Indo-China, it must inevitably give rise to a most serious situation between Great Britain and Japan. Sir Robert Craigie then gave to Admiral Toyoda, the Japanese Foreign Minister, the most formal assurance that all these reports of British aggressive designs against Thailand were, of course, utterly baseless. The truth is that we have now had for over a century friendly relations with Thailand, and our policy has no other object than to maintain these relations. But it is not less true that any action which would threaten the independence and integrity of Thailand, would be a matter of immediate concern to this country, more particularly as threatening the security of Singapore. I hope that these words may yet be heeded.
Let me add this about another country in the Far East. As the House knows, there is no alliance, formal or informal, between this country and China. But every fresh forward move on the part of Japan naturally has the result of bringing China and ourselves closer and closer together. It results in more intimate consultation, and we have had an example of that, as the House knows, only the other day. The Chinese Government, immediately understanding the importance of the freezing order themselves, not only approved the Measure, but asked that it should be applied to China so that it might be more effective against Japan. That friendship, that collaboration with China, will continue and, I pray, will grow.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend indicating to the House that friendship with China will grow only in accordance with Japanese demands? Could we not make ourselves perfectly clear to-day with regard to our position in relation to China?

Mr. Eden: Certainly that friendship will grow. It is a long-standing friendship, and it has been growing and will continue

to grow, independent of Japan's attitude. But the point I wish to make is that Japan's forward aggressions invariably result in two friends, who have no aggressive intentions, getting closer and closer together.
Let me come for a moment to the Middle Eastern situation. There, perhaps, I can carry the comments which hon. Members have made to-day on war and peace aims a step further. We have said, over and over again, that this country has no territorial ambitions in this war. We seek no territory anywhere. We did not go to war to enlarge our country. We went to war because the Nazi menace threatened the life of Europe, threatened our own life and freedom, and threatened, as it threatens to-day, the peace of the world. We went to war to resist aggression and not to steal prizes or to pilfer loot. Having said that, it follows that there can be, on our part, only one policy towards all those nations who live in the area bounded on the West by the Suez Canal and on the East by the frontiers of India—all that territory loosely referred to as the Middle East. For all the countries in that area we have only one policy. We wish to see them lead their own lives in security and at peace. We claim that our past action has shown that. After the last war in Iraq, and after a very considerable expenditure of money, we set up an independent Iraqi State and we withdrew our Forces.
The world will have to look far and often before it finds any sign of action of that kind in Hitler's policy. That was the policy we pursued deliberately, and, so it is, when our hostilities with Germany and Italy are over, we shall do our utmost to assist those lands in the Middle East to enjoy a free and independent life. Meanwhile forces of men and material are pouring out to strengthen our forces in the Middle East for their next forward blow. They are going from this country, from the United States, from India and from East Africa, where the campaign is almost over. I suggest that the blows those forces will strike are blows struck for the independence of those lands in the Middle East just as much as they are for ourselves. If that be true, and it is true, perhaps that carries with it a corollary. These countries must co-operate with us in ensuring that they do not afford opportunity to Germany or the Axis to create troubles, disturbances, upheavals, or risings to further the Axis war effort.
I take one example of what I mean—Iran. There is in Iran to-day a large number of Germans. Past experience in many lands has shown that these German colonists, or however they may be described—whether they are experts, or whether they are tourists, or whatever they have been called—are extremely dangerous to the country in which they are found at a critical hour. So it is that we have drawn the attention of the Iranian Government—their serious attention—to the danger, in their own interests, of continuing to permit an extremely large number of Germans to reside in their country. I trust the Iranian Government will not fail to heed this warning, which is given in all friendliness and in all sincerity, and will take the necessary measures now to deal with this situation.
There is another country in the part of the world about which I would also speak—Turkey. The foundation of our relations with Turkey is the Anglo-Turkish Treaty. We have observed, and whatever the future holds we shall continue to observe, that Treaty loyally. We believe that friendship between this country and Turkey can be a lasting contribution to European understanding. Not only during the war, but after the war, we shall hope to work together in full amity and understanding. Perhaps some hon. Members have seen from time to time the suggestion made by enemy propaganda that we might agree, or that we have agreed, to some arrangement or other at the expense of Turkey. There is not, of course, a shadow of truth in any such suggestion. We would never agree to anything of the kind, nor in fact has any suggestion of the sort ever been made to us by any party. The post-war world will require the collaboration of many States, great and small. In that world the Turkey re-created by the genius of Ataturk will have a noble part to play and, in doing so, Turkey will decide her own course and she will choose her own collaborators.
There is another country in the Near East about which I must speak in very different terms. Bulgaria took the opportunity presented by the wanton attack made by Italy and Germany on Greece and Yugoslavia to seize, under the Axis cloak, large areas of Greek and Yugoslav territory. In so doing Bulgaria showed

herself hostile to her Balkan neighbours and hostile to the whole conception of Balkan unity. To-day she is, no doubt, well pleased with her ill-gotten gains but she may rest assured that in the end those will not benefit her. Her action will not be forgotten by ourselves, nor by our Allies, when the day of reckoning comes.
Before I close I should like to say a word or two about the Russian-Polish negotiations and the situation at present on the Russian front. My right hon. Friend has said with truth that we have watched with growing admiration the magnificent resistance of the Russian Army. The House equally welcomed the arrangement to which a few days ago the Russian and Polish Governments came for the immediate regulation of their affairs. It is our hope that this arrangement is the opening of a new chapter in the relations between these two Powers. I am glad that my hon. Friend paid a very generous tribute to the Polish Prime Minister. It is richly deserved, and we must always pay a tribute to those who are willing to rise superior to past memories, however bitter, and to try to work in true statesmanship for a better future. I am glad to be able to tell the House that real despatch is being used in giving effect to the Agreement so recently reached. The Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Forces in Russia has already been chosen, appointed by the Polish Government in agreement with the Soviet Government, and has begun his work. Officers from this country and also one or two political representatives, Polish officers, have already arrived in Moscow and begun their work, and I have been assured by both Governments, and I am convinced that it is true, that they are determined to work this Agreement with energy, in order to make the maximum contribution they can to the defeat of Germany at the earliest possible moment.
The House is shortly to adjourn for a few days or longer. During that time we shall, no doubt, be the recipients of news of all kinds, some of it good, some of it not so good, some of it perhaps better, but I believe—I say this watching events from the Foreign Office—that, whatever the news, our reaction here must be the same, of an ever-continuing, ever-increasing effort. It is true that the emphasis of the war has shifted. It is true that opportunities are opening which


seemed impossible of realisation a year ago. I can remember a week when I was at the War Office when our trained and equipped forces in this country did not number one division. It is a different story now, but an enormous amount remains to be done. If the material were there, an immense amount remains that we could do, which yet we are still unable to do. for our friends and our Allies, apart from ourselves. During this brief Recess our watchword must be "Production and more production, effort and more effort," until the victory is won.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.(Alternative conditions to be complied with by authorised sellers of poisons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 27,after "drugs, "insert "dispensed or."

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is of a purely drafting character.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 15, leave out Sub-section (7).

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.''
This must be read alongside the Amendment to insert the second new Clause on the Paper. The new Clause expresses the same idea as that contained in the Subsection which it is proposed to omit, but it does so in slightly different and rather more appropriate words. I do not think the House will wish to be bothered with a detailed description of why the proposed new words are more appropriate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 21, leave out Sub-section (8).

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This proposal must be read in conjunction with the proposal to insert the first of the two new Clauses on the Order Paper. It was found after the Bill had got through this House that there was no provision for the enforcement of the provisions of this Part of the Act relating to poisons in the case of sellers of poisons who were not also sellers of drugs and who only sold the poisons contained in Part II of the Poisons List. We are, therefore, omitting Subsection (8), which was intended to deal with this point in a limited way, and the new Clause provides a comprehensive scheme for dealing with the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 44, at the end, insert new Clause:

(Extension of local authorities list.)

(1) On the application of an authorised seller of poisons who wishes to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, but neither poisons included in Part I of that list nor drugs, the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated shall enter his name in the list kept by them under section twenty-one of the principal Act as a person entitled subject to the provisions of that Act, to sell on those premises poisons included in the said Part II:
Provided that the local authority may refuse to enter in, or may remove from, the list the name of any person who fails to pay the fees prescribed by rules or who in the opinion of the authority is, for any sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, not fit to be on the list.
(2)The provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of the said section twenty-one (which relate to appeals from the decision of a local authority to refuse to enter a name in, or to remove a name from the list, and other incidental matters) shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(3)Where any premises of an authorised seller of poisons are entered in a local author ity's list by virtue of this section, it shall be the duty of the authority under subsection (5) of section twenty-five of the principal Act, and not the duty of the Society under sub section (1) of that section, to take all reason able steps to secure compliance by him, as respects those premises, with the provisions of Part 11 of the principal Act and of the rules made there under so far as those pro visions relate to poisons included in Part II


of the Poisons List; and the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) of that section relating to inspectors shall apply accordingly.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and a Special Entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment in page3, line 44, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 29, after "not," insert "
 at the time when the directions are given.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment to remove any possible doubt as to the relevant date to be considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 12, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 31, leave out "an article."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the other Amendments to this page must be read together. They are intended to make it clear that the substance referred to is the combined ingredients contained in it and not the individual constituents. We thought we had the drafting so clear that it would be understood that the substance in a bottle was not the actual separate ingredients which were recommended but the mixture as a whole. One might take the example of a cocktail. In another place it was suggested that if a mixture of tomato juice and Worcester sauce were sold, it was not the tomato sauce or the Worcester sauce that was recommended but the mixture of the two. We thought that the drafting of the Bill made it plain that the

article that was sold was the bottle or container or packet containing the substance which was recommended. There was, however, some doubt in the minds of one section of the Society of Herbalists that the drafting was not clear. When we met them and explained what we meant they suggested some further words, which are embodied in these Amendments. They make it clear that when the article is sold it is the bottle or the container containing the substance that is the recommended medicine, and if it is not in the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex it can be sold by anyone. The fact that the individual ingredients in the substance may be in the Pharmacopoeia does not matter, because it is the substance as a whole that is sold. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of the Bill because it has not been examined sufficiently carefully. We are putting in these words in order to make it even clearer, if possible, to those who are willing and anxious to read the Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask whether the words now proposed meet with the full approval of the Society of Herbalists? There has been a good deal of controversy and correspondence, and I would like to get that assurance.

Miss Horsbrugh: The Amendments to page 10 which we are now discussing have been inserted to cover them. I do not want the House to think, however, that they are entirely satisfied about other Clauses, although I think they ought to be if they read the Bill as a whole.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments, to page 10, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Defences to and evidence on charges under two preceding sections.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 35, at the end, insert:
(3) No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of section eight instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment will again, I think, help those who have any anxiety. One of the anxieties of the herbalists was that someone who might be an opponent, who did not agree with their selling herbal remedies, might, under Clause 9, go into one of their shops, buy some medicine and then institute a case in the courts. It is, therefore, proposed that no prosecution for a contravention of the two preceding Sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General. In another place it was agreed to by those representing the herbalists that the Pharmaceutical Society and the Food and Drugs Authorities should still have their rights under Clause 8. It is now clear, however, that no rival in business such as an individual from a chemist shop in the same street will be able to prosecute without the consent of the Attorney-General. This Amendment was made to meet anxieties which perhaps were not well founded, but were sincerely felt by the people representing the Society of Herbalists.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I would like an assurance regarding prosecution. The herbalists want to know whether the British Medical Association are to be given such powers that they can persuade the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to destroy their businesses. They do not feel happy about it. They do not appear to have tarried on this campaign from a vindictive standpoint, and they are doubtful of the Minister's explanation in this House. Are we saying to the herbalists by this Clause that they can carry on business so long as they act within the law and do not contravene anything which any other citizen or tradesman is not allowed to contravene?

Miss Horsbrugh: This Amendment is practically in the same sense as the Amendment which was put down in another place on behalf of the herbalists, with the exception of the proviso about the Food and Drugs Act. As the hon. Member has said, there has been a good deal of feeling on this matter, but I think myself that it is now over. I feel that the explanation given in another place, and above all the fact that at last, a few days ago, the herbalists were willing to come to the Ministry of Health and put their difficulties before us round a table,

has brought about quite a different atmosphere. I only wish they had done so before, because it would have settled the whole matter if those who had been able to speak for them had come to us earlier with their legal advisers.

Mr. Walkden: We are very glad.

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not say that they may not still have some anxiety, but I think it has been made clear that this Amendment will carry out what we arranged, subject to the proviso.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I agree with what the hon. Lady has said, but there are just two things which perhaps the. Attorney-General can do for us. The first is to assure us that he has no connection with the British Medical Association, and the second that he is not unduly prejudiced against herbalists.

The Attorney-General: I am happy to give that assurance in both cases.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is this protection against prosecution quite satisfactory to those legal advisers of the herbalists who met my hon. Friend?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. and gallant Member, if he had seen the Order Paper for another place, would have noticed that an Amendment was put down on behalf of the herbalists asking that no prosecutions should take place except with the consent of the Attorney-General, and the only difference between that and the present Amendment is that there is now a proviso. Of course, if the herbalists and those who speak for them have no faith in the Attorney-General, I am afraid we must differ.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not know whether the House will expect an elaborate explanation of this


Measure or not. It is a counterpart of the Measure which has already been accepted by this House for England and Wales. It provides simply for the stabilisation of Exchequer grants to local authorities in Scotland until such period after the war as Parliament may determine. The stabilisation proposals in the Measure have been agreed to by the three principal local authority organisations concerned.

Mr. Mathers: I rise only for the purpose of assuring the right hon. Gentleman that we consider that the provisions in this Bill are necessary and inevitable in the present circumstances and we hope the Bill will speedily pass into law.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I should like to say that we who have studied this Bill from the back benches are also agreed that it is necessary and we support my right hon. Friend in introducing it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill Committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIALPROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the third fixed grant period under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and to make provision for the stabilisation of Supplementary Exchequer Grants under the said Act and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable which is attributable:—
(a) to the extension of the said period until such date as Parliament may hereafter determine; and
(b) to the stabilisation for the term of the extension of the said period of Supplementary Exchequer Grants under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Johnston.

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, l882 TO 1936.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and under the South Wales Electric Power Act 1932, and confirmed by the Minister of War Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the South Wales Electric Power Company, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th July, be approved."—[Colonel Llewellin.]

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1939.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 18th July, 1941, adding Regulation 78 to the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, 1941, be annulled.
The Regulation to which the Motion refers is an addition to the series of Defence Regulations which enable Ministers to control undertakings and companies in the national interest. The House will remember that, under the Defence Act, two alternative powers were given to the Executive, either to take possession of an undertaking or to control an undertaking. In cases where possession is taken, the procedure is fairly simple; the requisitioned premises are at the disposal of the Government, and those interested in them are entitled to the compensation laid down by the Compensation Act. In cases of control. the procedure is altogether different and somewhat more complicated. The undertaking remains the undertaking of the company, who still continue to own it. Originally, the procedure for control consisted in the Minister of Supply, where he thought fit, making an order that certain industries or certain undertakings should be controlled, and that having been done, the controller appointed was in a position to give directions as to how the undertaking should be carried on.
In the great majority of cases, undertakings were carried on under those directions without any difficulty, in the national interest. In cases, the control had to be tightened up, and under Regulation 54, the Minister of Supply was entitled to appoint authorised controllers of the undertaking; and then any


competent authority was entitled to give orders to those authorised controllers how that particular undertaking was to be carried on. I think the competent authorities now include almost all the Departmental Ministers, with the possible exception of the Minister of Information, who I do not think is yet a competent authority. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is a competent authority. With those exceptions, and one or two others, practically every Departmental Minister is a competent authority.
The controller appointed in fact becomes at once a kind of super-director. The board of directors and management remain, but they have to act under the directions given by the controller. In some cases, almost inevitably, clashes arise between the controllers and the board of directors of the company. The board of directors and the management have, after all, the legal obligation to consider the interests of the particular undertaking, both its immediate interests and its future interests, and however much they may desire to do matters in the national interest, there are occasions on which what the controller thinks necessary in the national interest may conflict with what a perfectly honest, honourable and patriotic board of directors think desirable for their own particular company.
I give a simple instance. Assume that a company has a large issue of debentures and has accumulated a reserve fund for the purpose of meeting those debentures when they mature in the year 1945. The controller may think that the reserve fund would be better spent, for the momentary national advantage, in purchasing new premises and equipping them, or in carrying on some new activity. The board of directors may say that that would land the company in bankruptcy and insolvency after the war, and there may be a perfectly genuine and honest conflict of opinion between the board of directors and the controller. There have been such instances, and to meet that sort of case this new Regulation is being added to war-time legislation. It deals with two matters. In cases where authorised controllers have been appointed, it authorises the competent authority, at their will, to dismiss any director or manager if, in the opinion of the competent authority, that director

or manager has been in any way obstructing the controller in what he thinks ought to be done. In such a case, the competent authority will no doubt come to a decision on the advice given by the controller. Secondly, the new Order authorises the competent authority, if it thinks fit, to acquire the whole of the share capital of the company by having it transferred to nominees of the competent authority, at a price to be fixed by the Treasury or, if that is not acceptable to the shareholders, at a price to be fixed by an accountant to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
These are extremely drastic powers for the Executive to take. I will not say that such powers are not necessary in some shape or form, but I venture to criticise the Order as it is worded at present and to point out how utterly unfair it is that every option in the matter should be given to the Executive while the shareholders and others interested in the company should have no right to protest against what is being done or to prevent their shares being acquired. The first point is that the question of whether the shares shall be acquired is a matter which, by the Order, is left solely to the wishes of the Treasury and of the competent authority. The position therefore arises that in cases where the competent authority thinks fit to turn out a board of directors or a manager, and to continue to have the business run by the nominees of the competent authority, the shareholders may have no right whatever to have their shares paid for.
What is more, tucked away in the Order is a provision that no application to wind up the company may be made by anybody. Therefore, you may have the position, during the whole of this war, that a company may be run by the nominees of a Department, carrying on work unauthorised by its memorandum, and disapproved of by the shareholders, and no sort or kind of relief or remedy given to the shareholders. I do suggest that that position may be so grossly unfair to the shareholders that it should not go through this House without some protest against it. I do not necessarily want the Order to go on the scrap heap, but I suggest there is unfairness in its present form. An option ought to be given to the shareholders. If a majority of their elected directors are displaced in this way, simply by a piece of paper signed by the competent authority, they should have the right, if the majority


of them think fit, to say to the competent authority that "In these circumstances you have to buy our shares." The option should not be solely in favour of the Executive, leaving the subject no sort of right at all. That is the most important alteration I should like to see made in this Order.
There is a second, and almost equally important point. While the Order seems to contemplate that in certain circumstances it may be proper for the competent authority and the Treasury to buy share capital, there is nothing in the Order about what is to be done regarding loan capital. But there is in the Order—and this is all-important—provision that no application for winding-up a company is to be made at all. You may get a case in which a company at the present time has shares of very little value, has very little share capital, and has been financed by loan capital. It may have reserve funds accumulated for the purpose of paying back that loan capital. The whole of the board may be displaced, the nominees of a Department may come in, and the business may be run for any purpose those nominees think fit. As far as I can see, the debenture holders and those who have loaned money are left without any sort of remedy at all. They can bring an action but, if they get judgment, unless they are in a position to enforce that judgment by winding up the company, they are absolutely helpless. In some cases it may be possible to bring an action for the appointment of a receiver on the ground that their security is in jeopardy but nothing is said about it in the Order. 'No one seems to have considered the position of companies financed by loan capital and the position of those who have loaned money to that sort of company. I suggest that the Government ought to treat this matter in exactly the same way as if some other company were going to acquire the company concerned by not only buying up the shares but also by paying off the loan capital or coming to some arrangement so that they are content that it shall go on under this drastic method of management by nominees of the Ministry.
Those are the two most important points. There are other points. Take the position of the director or manager who has a long-term agreement with a

company and whose whole living depends on the remuneration he gets from that company. What is to happen when he gets notice to quit, by this chit which he is to receive from some official? Has he any claim against anybody? The company has not broken his contract. Are the Government to give that man any compensation, or is he to go straight into the gutter? That point seems to have been entirely overlooked. To turn men out from managing businesses which they have built up themselves, and on which their living depends is going far beyond what is normal, even in war-time.
I return to the question of preventing any application for winding up a company. That means that these nominee directors may carry on a company and run it into debt, and the creditors will have no remedy. There is a great body of law which lays down the duties of directors to their companies. Those duties are in the nature of quasi-trustee duties to the concerns of which they are in control. I am reasonably certain that if the directors of a company, whether they are the original directors or nominees put in by a competent authority, use the assets of the company for any purpose which, however important nationally, is against the interests of the company, they will be considered by a court of law to have committed misfeasances, unless some very clear legislation is passed. A whole series of actions will arise in the courts, with shareholders or other interested people asking for injunctions to restrain directors from acting against the interests of their companies. 
I ask those responsible for this Order to reconsider the position. There will be a great many cases where boards of directors and managers will, in the interests of their companies, endeavour to fight the Order, unless it is made more fair. What is envisaged as the future of these concerns? At the end of the war all Departments will have shares vested in nominees. There is nothing in the Order to say that the original owners shall have any chance of getting their businesses back. Are the owners who are dispossessed to have no right whatever to get back their interests? It seems to me that the matter is one which raises not only the difficulties of administration of procedure which I have mentioned, but


matters of principle, which are of very great importance to the future of industry in this country and I do beg that the Order shall either be reconsidered and a new Order brought in, or that my hon. Friend will promise that the points raised shall be carefully considered with a view, if possible, to bringing in an amending Order at an early date.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I rise to support the able, comprehensive and eloquent statement just made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), which is the view of many of us who are associated with industry in this country. What is the origin of this Order, and under what circumstances did it arise? Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why it was made? Is there some distrust of the administration of companies in this country? No doubt there are, here and there, recalcitrant directors who will not comply with the requests of His Majesty's Government to discharge to the full their obligations in respect of the production of munitions of war, but this Order is a slight on the integrity, honour and outlook of those who are responsible generally for the direction of industry throughout the country.
What has happened to the organisation of industry that makes it necessary for an Order of this kind to be introduced? Believe me, boards of directors in this country are just as alive to their responsibilities as any member of His Majesty's Administration. They are anxious to discharge their obligations in every possible way they can. Now this Order places them in a position of being liable to discharge at a moment's notice at the behest of various authorities. This Order ought to be modified to make it quite clear that only when those responsible for the direction of industry are not discharging their duties to the full in relation to the war effort should the Order be applied. Further, the interests of loan capital should be carefully safeguarded within the limits of this Order. We are living in days when Departmental legislation is becoming a disease in the body politic. In the last war it was the same, and there ought to be some limit to the drastic power of an Order such as this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am very grateful to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the moderate way in which they have stated the very natural anxieties that must be felt about an Order which is admittedly drastic in its character. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said frankly that, in his view, its drastic character did not in itself make the Order undesirable. In time of war a large number of drastic and unusual things have to be done. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that at the very beginning of this Administration a solemn declaration was embodied in an Act of Parliament by which the person and property of every subject of His Majesty were made and declared to be available for the purpose of the better conduct of the war.
My hon. and learned Friend pointed out with truth that the powers already in the hands of the Administration are very large and have worked satisfactorily in the vast majority of cases. We have a power to requisition the tangible assets of any commercial undertaking, and we have a power to control it. Let me deal first with the power to take the tangible assets. That is a useful requisitioning power which is continually invoked for the purpose of taking land, houses and things of that sort. But when it comes to taking over a working, organised company, that may be a very inconvenient method of dealing with it, because a working productive company is something more than the mere land, machine tools, buildings and so on. For a variety of reasons it is not a convenient way to use the existing power of requisition, and, indeed, I think it would be rather an unreasonable method to use in order to get possession of a particular undertaking. Production would be interrupted by the temporary disorganisation caused by requisitioning, and although shorn of its tangible assets, the company would still remain in being. The position of its contracts and sub-contracts would be very obscure, and the creditors of the company would be far more prejudiced by the requisitioning of all the tangible assets than by the taking over of the company as a whole.

Mr. Spens: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Macmillan: I was pointing out that the power of requisitioning, although a proper power to take concerning certain assets, such as land for aerodromes, is not, for a variety of reasons, with which I will not deal in detail, as my hon. and learned Friend agrees with me, a very appropriate power for dealing with the structure of an entity like a production company. There is, then, the power of control, which, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, really takes two forms. There are declared to be controlled undertakings, which range over a very wide field of production, and they are merely declared, in effect, to be essential undertakings for the prosecution of the war. There is, then, the power in Regulation 55 (4), subsequently amended by another Regulation, by which the competent authority may put in an agent or controller to carry on the business of a particular undertaking. The cases in which we have done that, or would wish to do it, are very few in number, and I should like at once to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) that this Order is in no sense a slight upon the great engineering and production companies of this country. Far from it. It is only in a tiny number of cases that we should wish to use these powers, and, in fact, have used the existing powers under the present Regulation, to put in a controller. I would say that the percentage of cases in which I can conceive of these powers being used is less than 1 per cent., a fraction of 1 per cent.
After all, the normal relationship between a Supply Department and the great industries of the country is one of friendly and co-operative partnership, and I hope my hon. Friend will use his great influence to let industries know that this Order is not in any way intended for any other purpose than to deal with one or two rather intractable and difficult cases that have, in fact, arisen. I will be quite frank. Had these cases not been connected with rather important aspects of supply, we might have been content with the powers of requisitioning and the power to put in an agent or controller. But it so happened that in one or two cases we have had refractory and difficult managements in undertakings engaged on munition production of the very highest national importance.
What are the powers we have? At present we have the power to put in a controller or an agent—this is under the existing Regulation. That agent has the right to take control on behalf of His Majesty of any undertaking for the purposes of exercising such control as may be provided by the Order, and he can provide that the undertaking shall be carried out in accordance with any directions given by the authorised controller, and any persons functioning in functions of management must comply with such directions. That would appear to have been a sufficiently powerful Regulation to achieve our purposes in these very small numbers of cases. But in fact it has led—and this is the reason for this new Order—to a rather foolish and undesirable position. In the particular case I have in mind, the controller or agent was appointed under the existing Regulation. The affairs of the company were then being carried on by the controller, with the existing board, or some of its members, doing everything they could to make his position impossible in important and unimportant matters. Friction between the authorised controller and the existing board of directors took place, and a situation arose under which the affairs of no undertaking could be carried on—certainly not to the advantage of the shareholders.

Sir P. Hannon: Have the provisions of the Regulation been put into operation in the particular cases I have quoted to the House?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, and with the -results I have described. There was a very unfortunate series of conflicts. When we put in a controller or manager, we usually obtain the services of a distinguished and well-known industrialist, who in this case was voluntarily acting as a piece of national service on behalf of the Government. Such a man finds himself in a very ludicrous position when he is put in by the Government to control a factory doing vital munition work if he is obstructed in every way, both in petty and important matters, by the existing board of directors or some of its members. The board in this particular case went so far as to bring an action against us. I think the House will agree that this is not a very satisfactory way of carrying out important contracts for munition work. Therefore, it has been decided to take two additional powers, and, as my hon. and learned


Friend has said, they are, of course, drastic powers. They give power to remove directors and appoint directors in their place.
It is quite true that under those powers we can remove the whole board of directors and allow the controller to carry on his duties unhampered by a recalcitrant board. When seeking advice on this matter, we were very much impressed with the very point my hon. and learned Friend has made. It does seem to be a rather strong measure even in war-time to remove a board of directors. Therefore, we have taken a second power, namely, to purchase at a fair price the total share capital of the undertaking, for the very reason indicated by my hon. and learned Friend, that if we were to go so far as to remove the directors, the fair thing to do was to acquire the whole business. In other words, instead of merely requisitioning the tangible assets of the business, which of course we could do at the beginning of the war, we should go further and requisition the share capital.

Sir P. Hannon: Does this process of acquisition of capital and the removal of directors take place without any reference at all to the shareholders?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes. In addition to requisitioning the tangible assets, a piece of machinery or a building, we will have the power of requisitioning the actual shares. There seems to be no particular reason why, if the Crown has under the stress of war the right to seize real property, or any fixed or tangible asset, and purchase it at a fair price, it should not also have the right to purchase the share capital of an undertaking. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend objected to that. The history of the matter started with control working reasonably well, though there were one or two cases of difficulty. We then wished to get practical control unhampered by obstructive directors, so we have taken the power to appoint our own directors. In some cases the majority of the board might be friendly to the Government and the controller, and there would be only one or two directors whom we should wish to remove. There we should act under these powers. But I feel the force of the argument put by my hon. and learned Friend, and I will have the point carefully inquired into. If we

felt that the whole board, representing all the shareholders, was so out of sympathy with the Ministry and so unwilling to work in any kind of co-operative spirit that we wished to remove them all, I can give a definite undertaking that we should certainly proceed with the second power and purchase the whole business at the true and proper value of the shares.
The only point that remains is whether this option of purchase of the shares should be an option only exercised by the Government or whether the share holders should have the right, if the whole board is removed, to say, "You have put in a controller and turned out all the directors; you ought to buy all our shares." As a matter of practice that is what we should do, and it is because we thought the right to purchase the shares was a fair accompaniment of the right to remove all the directors that we put in that part of the Order. But I will examine it again to see whether some equivalent and balancing power might be introduced by amendment. I can only say at this stage that that is the way the Government intend to work the Order. If we made a complete sweep of the board, we should think the proper thing was to buy the shares.

Sir P. Hannon: To whom will the Treasury refer in settling the value of the shares?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a point which arises in the valuation of every estate. When shares are valued for Estate Duty purposes, the value: has to be that as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, at arm's length. If there is any disagreement, there is the right of the shareholders to ask for arbitration, which is made by an accountant appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. On the first and major point, we should wish to operate this in a very small number of cases, and if we did more than remove one or two directors who had not the confidence of the shareholders as a whole, we should in fact operate this right of purchasing the shares. I will see whether we can introduce an Amendment which will make that right reciprocal and allow the shareholders to demand to be bought up if these powers are used to their full extent.
My hon. and learned Friend also raised the question of loan capital, that is, either bank loans or long-term or short-term


loans in the shape of first or second debentures. These remain the liabilities of the company, and when the Government buy the shares these are as well secured as, before unless it can be thought that the management of the company by the Government's controller would be less likely to put it in a position to deal effectively with the loans than the directors. In point of fact, this is a power which would be exercised in a very small number of cases because the Government are not anxious to get themselves loaded with the shares of all kinds of industrial undertakings. They will only exercise control because they intend to place large orders with the company, and that will put the company in a rather good financial position. I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason to suppose that the loan capital or loans will be any less well secured when the Government are using the company for placing large orders than they are at the present time. I will, however, have that point more specifically looked into to see whether any amendment ought to be made.
With regard to the directors, it is true that there are companies in which there are long-term contracts. not usually between directors as such, but more often with managers. These, of course, will remain as an obligation on the companies, because the new owners of the shares will not be relieved from any ordinary obligation by the mere purchase of the shares. In practice, the purpose of taking over a company is in order to run it, and it is not probable that the Government would wish to remove those directors or managers, who are valuable to the management of the company. I see the difficulty that there may sometimes be with long-term contracts of this kind. I do not think that they have been a very desirable feature of our industrial operations. They are very often based upon services which are being paid for in this particular way without any real return. I am bound to say that, if we consider the circumstances in which this control is exercised and the fact that it is only for a tiny percentage of cases that these; powers are asked for, and having regard to the fact that we are at war and to the immense losses which the community have suffered, it is not a very serious power to ask for.

Sir P. Hannon: I apologise for interrupting so frequently, but will my hon.

Friend make this clear? He knows that the contracts with works managers and various officers connected with the organisation of industry in this country are sometimes for three, five or seven years. These are men of first-class importance, key men in industry. Will the position of these men be secured under this Order?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir, I must be frank, they will not be legally secured The object of the Ministry is to secure the best possible production, and unless such managers conducted themselves in such a way as to try to prevent the company making munitions or other products which the Government required I do not think the Government would remove them. I do not think there is a very serious danger of that, although there is a theoretical danger.

Mr. Spens: I want to emphasise this point, that any of the directors may have a permanently bona fide, honest difference of opinion with the controller. The hon. Gentleman speaks of "obstructing the controller," and in a sense they may be, because they may take the view that what he is doing is going to land their company into bankruptcy, and that may be the reason why they object to doing what the controller asks. If they are then thrown out they ought to be secured in some way.

Mr. Macmillan: I was coming later to that point. There is the power of issuing winding-up orders, but here again I do not think that is a very great danger, because it seems to me that the credit of a company is as likely to be as good with the Government behind it as it was when it was being conducted in its present form. There is, finally, the question of the future of shares which may come into the hands of the Government. I can only say, and I can see the eye of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury upon me, that I should think the last thing the Government would wish for would be to find itself landed with large blocks of shares of a large number of engineering companies at the end of this war. We do not wish to exercise these rights for the sake of doing so, and we shall make almost every effort not to exercise them. I can think only of about three cases in which up to now we should wish to exercise these rights, but, of course, we shall hold them in terrorem


in a few more cases in which we think firms have not been playing the game in the national effort.
That leads me to the final and what is perhaps the real underlying point in my hon. and learned Friend's speech. He seems to think that there might be a real uncertainty in the mind of a director of a company as to whether his duty to his shareholders should lead him to continue to do one kind of work and his duty of the nation lead him to take on another find of work. If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I think that. is rather a narrow way of looking at this matter. There may be a company whose normal business is to make some product which is not one of the munitions of war but whose plant is admirably adapted to making tanks or guns or something of that kind. That company may do itself better service by trying to keep out of war production, keep on with its specialised business in order, perhaps, to "do down" some of its more patriotic rivals who have turned over their plant to meeting the needs of the nation. I say it is far too narrow a view of the duties of a director that he should say, "My company is all that matters; England may be beaten, conquered by the Germans, but we should go on making boxes or boilers, because we can sell them after the war, and if we change over to the making of guns we shall endanger the future of the company." I do not believe that is an attitude which the directors of any companies do take, or should take, and if they do take them I think they are taking too pedantic a view of their responsibilities to their shareholders. Their main responsibilities are much more in conformity with what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley has said.
The engineering concerns of this country, of which only a tiny percentage were employed before the war in making munitions, have changed over their businesses, are learning a new technique, and without regard to what may be their future advantages or disadvantages have placed the whole of their knowledge, power, executive authority and technical skill at the disposal of the Government, because they regard such a step as overriding the interests of their shareholders in the need for bringing the war to a successful conclusion.

Therefore, although I frankly admit that these Regulations are peculiar and drastic and certainly will not form part of the permanent structure of the legislation of the country in peace-time, I want the House to believe that we have asked for them, step by step, to meet one or two tiny cases—tiny in relation to the great structure which has been built up to meet the national needs—and that they will be used very sparingly. If we can, after very careful examination, we shall do our best to circumscribe our powers, but we wish to have them and we ask for them only because they are necessary in the national interest.

Mr. Spens: May I ask the leave of the House to make a few further remarks? Everybody, I think, takes exactly the view that he does of what we should like to be the views of directors of companies. I want to raise a matter of law, the question of whether there is sufficient in the law as it stands to-day to justify directors taking the view that all of us want them to take. We have to remember that the rights and wrongs of what they do now in the national interest may be threshed out after the war in the cold and grim atmosphere of a post-war liquidation. Directors may be asked how it came about that the assets of their companies were dissipated. If they answer that they were told it was in the national interest, I doubt whether that will be considered a complete defence to the claims of the shareholders and the creditors. I very much wish this point to be seriously considered by those who draft these Regulations. I do not desire to press this Motion, but I hope that the matter will be reconsidered and that an amending Motion will be introduced, if necessary, to deal with the considerations which I have raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.